Saturday, April 30, 2005

A Blanket Order concerning Appeals with Unpreserved Booker Errors

Yesterday, April 29th, the Court issued the following blanket order, which applies to all appeals raising a Booker claim in which the error was not preserved (i.e., primarily cases in which the sentencing occurred before Blakely was decided in June 2004). It states, in is cryptic entirety,

"John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, today announced the following: In cases pending on direct review involving appeals of sentences imposed prior to United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), in which the sentencing judge’s error in applying the Sentencing Guidelines mandatorily was not preserved for appellate review by an appropriate objection, the Court will be receptive to motions agreed to by all parties to the appeal to remand pursuant to United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005), without the need for briefing of the merits of the appeal. However, any panel to which such motions are presented has the prerogative to dispose of such motions as the panel deems appropriate."

I confess that I am not sure what this 2-sentence order means. On the one hand, the first sentence merely states the obvious: Haven't we all been seeking Crosby remands on consent rather than filing full merits briefs? On the other hand, the second sentence seems to take away somewhat what the first sentence gives: Any individual Panel hearing such consent motions may grant, deny, or do anything else it deems approrpiate to such motions. Huh?

Suggested interpretations are welcome.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog contained issues relating to credit report identity theft which I found quite absorbing. I would argue that credit report identity theft matters are best left to the professionals in most cases.

October 26, 2005 at 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And on a lighter note than pure brain injury lawyer , check out the funniest trial transcript ever! If it's not serious enough of a topic, well, just pretend it's the Brit's version of brain injury lawyer !

November 7, 2005 at 3:29 PM  
Anonymous wrongful termination said...

Hi, Thank you for having this info on the web. I enjoyed your post. If you may have any interest in
Connecticut Lawyers
then I know where you may get your solution. For your comfort, I have enclosed the link, so if needed you can visit the site. Thanks again for your lovely blog.

March 19, 2006 at 3:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home