18 U.S.C. § 3558
Implementation of a sentence
The implementation of a sentence imposed pursuant to section 3551 is governed by the provisions of chapter 229.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 914
cases, 1990–2017 · leading case: United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008). “18 U.S.C. § 3558 (a) and (a)(2). • All sentencing proceedings are to begin by determining the applicable Guidelines range.”
United States v. Benjamin Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017). ““The court must thereafter give the parties the opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate and consider those arguments in light of all of the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3558 (a).” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.”
United States v. Alfred Arnold Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005). “See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3558 (a) (Supp.2004). The Act nonetheless requires judges to consider the Guidelines “sentencing range established •.”
United States v. Eric Bloom, 846 F.3d 243 (7th Cir. 2017). “After considering the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3558 (a), however, the court sentenced Bloom to 168 months in prison.”
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008). “at 570 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3558 (a)). But the Guidelines, in attempting to foster uniformity by basing sentences on “real conduct,” see Booker, 543 U.”
United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2008). “Flint Thomas Red Feather contends that the district court committed numerous errors in sentencing him.”
United States v. William Elijah Trailer, 827 F.3d 933 (11th Cir. 2016). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3558 (a)(1). What’s more, Defendant then repeatedly lied to his probation officer about violating the terms of his supervised release.”
United States v. Brian A. Moreland, United States of Am. v. Brian A. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006). “6 Looking first at “the nature *435 and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3558 (a)(1), the court noted that the offense involved a relatively small amount of cocaine base, was nonviolent, and did not involve a…”
United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398 (4th Cir. 2017). “ongress provided that district courts must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with” the basic purposes of sentencing—namely, “(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for…”
United States v. Dantana Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2017). “Here, the district court stated that “[e]ven if the guideline calculations are not correct, this is the sentence the Court would otherwise impose under 18 U.S.C. § 3558 .” Similar statements have been sufficient to establish harmless error in other cases.”
United States v. Jawad Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006). “6 Section 3553(c) requires the court: at the time of sentencing, [to] state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the sentence— (1) is of the kind, and within the range, described in subsection (a)(4), and that range exceeds 24 months,…”
United States v. Shannon Parks, 823 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2016). “First, he argues that the district court failed to discuss the 18 U.S.C. § 3558 (a) factors. Although a district court “need not discuss each of these factors in either the sentencing hearing or in the sentencing order,” 3 this Court has held that it must at least “acknowledge[…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) — 1 case
United States v. Jimenez-Hernandez, 311 F. App'x 578 (4th Cir. 2008).
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.