Whether the likely Sentencing Guidelines range is the appropriate starting point for analyzing the seriousness of a defendant's crime

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• Joined byValenzuela-Puentes479 F.3d 1226

  “See Valenzuela-Puentes, 479 F.3d at 1226 (reasoning that “[w]hether a crime is ‘serious’ relates to the possible penalty the defendant faces if convicted, as well as the nature or effect of the underlying conduct for which he was charged,” and analyzing seriousness in light of both the statutory maximum and the likely guideline sentence); Gomes, 387 F.3d at 160 (describing “the seriousness of the crime and [the defendant’s] perceived dangerousness to society [as] evident from the substantial sentence [the defendant] faces if convicted” and noting that the defendant “faces a possible statutory …” — United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, acknowledging the split

• Joined byGomes387 F.3d 160

  “See Valenzuela-Puentes, 479 F.3d at 1226 (reasoning that “[w]hether a crime is ‘serious’ relates to the possible penalty the defendant faces if convicted, as well as the nature or effect of the underlying conduct for which he was charged,” and analyzing seriousness in light of both the statutory maximum and the likely guideline sentence); Gomes, 387 F.3d at 160 (describing “the seriousness of the crime and [the defendant’s] perceived dangerousness to society [as] evident from the substantial sentence [the defendant] faces if convicted” and noting that the defendant “faces a possible statutory …” — United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:

Sell

Statutes:

§ 1326