Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is reviewed for 'plainly unreasonableness' or for ordinary 'unreasonableness'
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Bolds511 F3D 568
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · December 20, 2007
“We note, however, that, as a practical matter, there is essentially only a two-way circuit split between those circuits applying the "plainly unreasonable” standard of review (Fourth, Seventh) and those applying "unreasonableness” review (Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh), with two circuits undecided (Sixth, Fifth), and two which have yet to confront the issue (First, D.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
28 U.S.C. § 994 — Duties of the Commission
“(a) The Commission, by affirmative vote of at least four members of the Commission, and pursuant to its rules and regulations and consistent with all pertinent provisions of any Federal statute shall promulgate and distribute to all courts of the United States and to the United States Probation System— (1) guidelines, as described in this section, for use of a sentencing court in determining the sentence to be imposed in a criminal case, including— (A) a determination whether to impose a sentence to probation, a fine, or a term of …”Read the full section →
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- 'plainly unreasonable' standard of review ·
- 'unreasonableness' review ·
- procedural reasonableness
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. See all circuit splits.