Buford vs. United States
Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit
No. 99-9073. Argued January 8, 2001--Decided March 20, 2001
TYPE OF CASE. This case has to deal with the certiorari (Latin for “to be informed”) from the United States Court of appeals for the seventh district. This case raises a question of the sentencing laws. What is the standard of review as it applies when a court of appeals reviews a trial court’s Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender’s prior convictions were consolidated, hence “related,” for purposes of sentencing? In particular, should the appeals court review the trial court’s decision deferentially or de novo?
FACTS OF THE CASE The trial court decision at issue focused on one aspect of the United States Sentencing Guidelines' treatment of "career offenders," a category of offender subject to particularly severe punishment. The Guidelines define a "career offender" as an offender with "at least two prior felony convictions" for violent or drug-related crimes. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §4B1.1 (Nov. 2000) (USSG).
Petitioner Buford pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery. At sentencing, the Government conceded that her four prior robbery convictions were related, but did not concede that her prior drug conviction was related to the robberies. The drug crime (possession of, with intent to deliver, cocaine) had taken place about the same time as the fourth robbery, and Buford claimed that the robberies had been motivated by her drug addiction. But the only evidentiary link among the crimes was that the police had discovered the cocaine when searching Buford's house after her arrest for the robberies.
Moreo...
... middle of paper ...
...ed deferential review of determination whether Government's legal position was "substantially justified")
In light of the fact-bound nature of the legal decision, the comparatively greater expertise of the District Court, and the limited value of uniform court of appeals precedent, we conclude that the Court of Appeals properly reviewed the District Court's "functional consolidation" decision deferentially. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
RULE Under Article 3, section 2 of the United States Constitution, The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law affecting citizens of states. The 8th Amendment for freedom of cruel and unusual punishment not particularly sited but understood.
Bibliography:
Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit
No. 99-9073. Argued January 8, 2001--Decided March 20, 2001
spiracy which included convicted to posses cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of (21 U.S.C sec 846), possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C sec
It supported the view in Tasmania that an appellate court should consider the Evidence afresh when reviewing a trial judge’s ruling. There was no dispute in this issue where both the parties in this case concurred to the approach taken. Therefore, it can be said that the reasoning of Underwood CJ in L v Tasmania and Basten JA (in dissent) in Zhang was accepted.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. This amendment is the 8th bill of rights in the constitution of the United States of America. The death penalty is a direct violation of the constitution of the United States, and should be deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. Although the death penalty shows justice at avenging the death of the innocent, it is not cost effective by being ten times more expensive than a criminal spending life in prison, and it violates the 8th amendment in the Constitution of the United States which is the supreme law of the land.
The Eighth Amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Eighth Amendment has two specific “elements” which define an individual’s actual rights retaining to the Eighth Amendment. The first “element,” “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed” states that fines or bail should not be overly unobtainable or imposed on an individual. The second “element” of the Eighth Amendment, “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” states that cruel or unusual punishment will not be inflicted.
The Supreme Court developed the laws governing Victim Impact Statements based on what they thought was a constitutional conflict where the punishment may be enhanced when a statement made by the victim or family may have more of an impact on the sentencing authority than the severity of the crime (Stevens 2000). Or that the victim impact statement may draw the juries attention away from the evidence at hand and the case being decided through emotional not evidence based means. The Eighth Amendment requires that no excessive bail be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.
On July 12, 2004, Carlos Alfonso Moreno appeared before the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. He brought before the court an appeal challenging the district court’s calculation of his sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guideline. The panel determined after reviewing his case that an oral argument would not be necessary. They were able to look at the details of his case and make their decision.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
The courts have declared that if a sentence is inhuman, outrageous, or shocking to society, it would be considered cruel and unusual. For example, cutting body parts off, breaking on the wheel, crucifixion, and so on. The Founding Fathers intention for the Eighth Amendment was to give the government into the hands of people and take it away from arbitrary rulers and judges, who might expose any amount of excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment that they wished....
...eversed and remanded back to the trial courts. One drawback to the court systems that is evident in this case is the length of time required to reach the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision occurred almost seven years after the trial started, only to be sent back to the trial process.
Citation: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 1989
A significant aspect of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution is that the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments is prohibited. However, interpretations of the definition of what a cruel and unusual punishment consists of have become extremely ambiguous. For example, many argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel to take another person’s life willingly; however, others argue that it is acceptable if it is done in a controlled and humane manner. Over the course of the United States history, punishments have ranged from public whippings
The Eighth amendment which was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and was ratified on December 15, 1791 states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This helps protect citizens by not allowing the judge to assign the defendant an excessive bail without knowing whether he or she is guilty of the crime in question. The second part states that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishment although it has not really been determined what is cruel and what is not. Things like branding, strangulation, being locked in stocks or burned where still means of punishment when the Eighth amendment was
Amendment 8: Punishment will fit the crime, fair fines, no excessive bails, nor cruel and unusual
The eighth amendment of the U.S Constitution has been a key part to the justice system from the moment it was created. It provides the basic rights that everyone deserves. The eighth amendment is very important because it guarantees many “freedom from” rights. For example, it protects Americans from cruel and unusual punishments. Without the eighth amendment many people would be punished in an inhumane manner based on the morals of the judge. The eighth amendment is crucial to the U.S Constitution because it promises that all citizens are guaranteed their rights, including the citizens who are felons and display criminal acts.
...ve enactments and state practice with respect to executions.” However in determining whether the death penalty is disproportionate to the crime also depends on the standards elaborated by controlling precedents and on the Court’s own understanding and interpretation of the Eighth Amendment ’s text, history, meaning, and purpose.