布克的未被注意的受害者:在没有指导原则的句子之前提供通知的重要性

IF 1.9 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

University of Chicago Law Review Pub Date : 2007-01-03 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.940954

I. Beylin

{"title":"布克的未被注意的受害者:在没有指导原则的句子之前提供通知的重要性","authors":"I. Beylin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.940954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper 1) notices that Booker uprooted the statutory basis for the departure concept, suggesting that courts are at liberty to deviate from precedent rooted in the pre-Booker concept; 2) explains why Rule 32(i)(1)(C) as read by Burns v United States requires notice prior to sua sponte non-Guidelines sentences in those jurisdictions that require a distinct legal determination if a non-Guidelines sentence is warranted; and 3) discusses why such notice would be beneficial in other jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":51436,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Booker's Unnoticed Victim: The Importance of Providing Notice Prior to Sua Sponte Non-Guidelines Sentences\",\"authors\":\"I. Beylin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.940954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper 1) notices that Booker uprooted the statutory basis for the departure concept, suggesting that courts are at liberty to deviate from precedent rooted in the pre-Booker concept; 2) explains why Rule 32(i)(1)(C) as read by Burns v United States requires notice prior to sua sponte non-Guidelines sentences in those jurisdictions that require a distinct legal determination if a non-Guidelines sentence is warranted; and 3) discusses why such notice would be beneficial in other jurisdictions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Chicago Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Chicago Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.940954\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Chicago Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.940954","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文1)注意到，布克推翻了背离概念的法定基础，这表明法院可以自由地偏离植根于布克之前概念的先例;2)解释为什么伯恩斯诉美国案中解读的规则32(i)(1)(C)要求在那些需要明确法律判定是否有必要作出非指导原则判决的司法管辖区作出非指导原则判决之前通知;3)讨论为什么此类通知在其他司法管辖区是有益的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Booker's Unnoticed Victim: The Importance of Providing Notice Prior to Sua Sponte Non-Guidelines Sentences

This paper 1) notices that Booker uprooted the statutory basis for the departure concept, suggesting that courts are at liberty to deviate from precedent rooted in the pre-Booker concept; 2) explains why Rule 32(i)(1)(C) as read by Burns v United States requires notice prior to sua sponte non-Guidelines sentences in those jurisdictions that require a distinct legal determination if a non-Guidelines sentence is warranted; and 3) discusses why such notice would be beneficial in other jurisdictions.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

University of Chicago Law Review LAW-

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

5.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The University of Chicago Law Review is a quarterly journal of legal scholarship. Often cited in Supreme Court and other court opinions, as well as in other scholarly works, it is among the most influential journals in the field. Students have full responsibility for editing and publishing the Law Review; they also contribute original scholarship of their own. The Law Review"s editorial board selects all pieces for publication and, with the assistance of staff members, performs substantive and technical edits on each of these pieces prior to publication.