New York Immigration Lawyers

Home ›› Court Opinions Topics & Themes   Asset Forfeitures   Conspiracy   Drug Policy Opinion   Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects   First Amendment   Justiciability   Medicinal Marijuana   Policy Considerations   Proportionality   Reasonable Expectation of Privacy   Searches and Seizures      Airports      Borders      Consent      Drug Testing      Dwellings      Exclusionary Rule      Grounds for a Search      Informants      Mail      Nuances of Detention      Personal Items      Private Action      Roads and Vehicles      Tools and Augmentation      Warrants   Sentencing and Penalties Authors Trivia

Court Opinions ›› Gall v. United States (2007) BRIAN MICHAEL GALL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES No. 06-7949 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 128 S. Ct. 586; 169 L. Ed. 2d 445; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 13083; 76 U.S.L.W. 4009; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 11 October 2, 2007, Argued December 10, 2007, Decided Petitioner, an individual who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a mixture and substance containing methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), sought certiorari review of a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the district court's decision to sentence petitioner to probation for a term of 36 months rather than imprisonment. Petitioner joined an ongoing enterprise distributing ecstasy while in college, but he withdrew from the conspiracy after seven months and ceased all drug activity. Three and one-half years after withdrawing from the conspiracy, petitioner pled guilty to his participation. The court of appeals characterized the difference between the sentence of probation and the bottom of petitioner's advisory Guidelines range of 30 months as "extraordinary," and it held that the variance was not supported by extraordinary circumstances. Although the Court agreed that the court of appeals could take the degree of variance into account and consider the extent of a deviation from the Guidelines, the Court held that the court of appeals erred in requiring "extraordinary" circumstances. The court of appeals' rule requiring "proportional" justifications for departures was not consistent with Booker. Under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that applied to review of sentencing decisions, the Court found that the court of appeals failed to give due deference to the district court's reasoned and reasonable decision that the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence of probation. Held: The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. 7-2 decision; 2 concurrences; 2 dissents. Opinion by: STEVENS It is true that the District Judge did not make specific reference to the (unquestionably significant) health risks posed by ecstasy... [...]

Drug Info - list of authority sites on various drugs. StopTheDrugWar.org Media Awareness Project Drug War Facts - just what the website name says. Very informative. Cigarettes © 2007 Yakov Spektor Privacy Policy