Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether a defendant's failure to object at sentencing subjects an appellate challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence under Booker to plain-error review
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Vonner516 F3D 382
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · February 7, 2008
“Second, the majority’s decision to apply plain error-review to one aspect of Von-ner’s Booker reasonableness claim also deepens a growing circuit split.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
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.
- Declined to follow · D.C. Cir.United States v. Bras483 F.3d 103
“In Bras, the defendant argued “that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider the sentencing factors listed in ...” — United States v. Vonner, acknowledging the split
- Declined to follow · 4th Cir.United States v. Baham215 Fed.Appx. 258
- Discussed · 4th Cir.United States v. Curry461 F.3d 452
- DiscussedBostic
“Under Rule 51(b) and Bostic, properly understood, Vonner need do nothing more.” — United States v. Vonner, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Anchor precedents:
- Booker543 U.S. 261
- Statutes:
- § 3553(a) ·
- § 3553
- Doctrines & tests:
- plain-error review ·
- reasonableness standard of review ·
- Rule 51(b)
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.