Rita v. United States
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Rita_v._United_States an entity of type: Thing
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Rita v. United States
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Victor A. Rita, Petitioner v. United States
xsd:integer
12092139
xsd:integer
1025860523
rdf:langString
Souter
xsd:integer
6
rdf:langString
Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito; Scalia, Thomas
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Sentence upheld by the Fourth Circuit, 177 F. App'x 357 .
xsd:integer
338
xsd:integer
551
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-20
xsd:integer
2007
rdf:langString
Rita v. United States,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-21
xsd:integer
2007
rdf:langString
Victor A. Rita, Petitioner v. United States
rdf:langString
Federal appellate courts may apply a presumption of reasonableness to sentences imposed under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
rdf:langString
Rita v. United States
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Ginsburg
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
14311