Rita, Claiborne, and the Courts of Appeals' Attachment to the Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract

This article provides a critical assessment of the work of the courts of appeals when conducting reasonableness review after United States v. Booker. It examines the presumption of reasonableness most circuits have afforded to within-Guidelines sentences and the requirement that a variance from the Guidelines be supported by a justification proportionate to the variance.

Keywords: sentencing, appellate review, criminal law