18 U.S.C. § 3557
Review of a sentence
The review of a sentence imposed pursuant to section 3551 is governed by the provisions of section 3742.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Williams v. United States
Williams v. United States (1992)
“[9] The legislative history to 18 U. S. C. § 3557 [10] is equally clear in this regard: "The provisions for appellate judicial review of sentences in section 3742 are designed to reduce materially any remaining unwarranted disparities by giving the right to appeal a sentence…”
United States v. Joseph Marshall (2020)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3557 . Section § 3551 in turn explains what types of punishment a district court may impose on an individual or organization “found guilty of an offense.”
United States v. Smith (2011)
“§ 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3557 . Sentencing issues are reviewed as prescribed by 18 U.”
United States v. Agatha R. Haut Henry D. Henson Paul D. Haut, Jr. Stephen Haut (1997)
“, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3557 , 3742(d); United States v.”
United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc. (1993)
“19 Finally, appellees urge that 18 U.S.C. § 3557 (1988) implicitly limits appeals under § 3742(b) to sentences imposed in accordance with § 3551.”
United States v. Pyatt (1989)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3557 . Moreover, Section 3742(g) explicitly provides that the standard of review there prescribed applies to appeals from sentences imposed by United States Magistrates.”
United States v. Margarito Mora-Estrada (1989)
“See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3557 , 3742(d). We begin by noting that according to the sentencing transcript, defendant’s base offense level under the Guidelines was 20, not 18 as he appears to assume on appeal.”
United States v. Edwards (1999)
“Petitioner Edwards now seeks review of issues that this court could have addressed at the time of sentencing and that Edwards could have appealed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3557 and 3742. Edwards seeks review of matters that were subject to habeas corpus review pursuant to 28 U.”
United States v. Nathaniel Swint (2011)
“Nate Swint appeals from the orders of the District Court denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3557 to review his sentence, his motion for reconsideration of that order, and his motion to reconsider his sentence.”
In re Brown v. United States (2024)
“18 U.S.C. § 3557 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742 ) (reciting “[a] defendant may file a notice of appeal in the district court for re- view of any otherwise final sentence” (emphasis added)).”
United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc. (1993)
“19 Finally, appellees urge that 18 U.S.C. §3557 (1988) implicitly limits appeals under §3742(b) to sentences imposed in accordance with §3551.”
In Re: Nate Swint v. (2011)
“He recently filed a “Letter/Motion Seeking Review of Sentences in Accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3557 ,” which the District Court denied in December 2010 on the basis that the cited statute governs appeals of final sentences and Swint had already had such an appeal more than a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.