Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query sentencing returned 156 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	PEPPER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	RING V. ARIZONA [Syllabus] Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, is irreconcilable with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and is, accordingly, overruled to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, see 497 U. S., at 647-649. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494, n. 19, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TAPIA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN [Syllabus]
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BUFORD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
	SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	WIGGINS V. SMITH [Syllabus] Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
	GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	DOLAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
	[Syllabus]
	DILLON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	GLOVER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BROWN V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
	BELL V. CONE [Syllabus] Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MELENDEZ V. UNITED STATES, 117 S. CT. 383, 136 L. ED. 2D 301 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BARBER V. THOMAS [Syllabus]
	MV. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	DANIELS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. ICE [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HYDE, 520 U.S. 670 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DRETKE V. HALEY [Syllabus] Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
	[Syllabus]
	BREWER V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
	EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus] Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
	NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WALL V. KHOLI [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BRADSHAW V. STUMPF [Syllabus]
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CARTER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA [Syllabus] Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
	LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
	LOPEZ V. DAVIS [Syllabus] Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
	CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CONE V. BELL [Syllabus]
	RENO V. KORAY, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS [Syllabus] The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S 322 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AYERS V. BELMONTES [Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOBBY V. BIES [Syllabus]
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES., 517 U.S. 292 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DEAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SMITH V. SPISAK [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ [Syllabus] Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
	LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SYKES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA [Syllabus] Whether trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to file a notice of appeal following a guilty plea in the absence a request by the defendant, particularly where the defendant has been advised of his appeal rights.
	DV. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN [Syllabus] 1) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?
	BROWN V. PLATA [Syllabus]
	EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LOGAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	WOOD V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	DECK V. MISSOURI [Syllabus]
	PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RUIZ [Syllabus] The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
	SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BEGAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]