SlideShare a Scribd company logo
HaroldSowards
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
8/31/15
Gall v. US
552 U.S. 38 (2007)
1. Facts
 Brian Michael Gall convicted(afterpleadingguilty)inthe U.S.DistrictCourt forthe
SouthernDistrictforIowaof conspiracytodistribute ecstasyandwassentencedto36
monthsof probation
 Governmentappealedandchallengedthe sentence
 8th
CircuitCourtof Appealsremandedforresentencingandcertiorari wasgranted
 In Feb.or March 2000, Gall invitedbyLuke Rinderknechttojoinanongoingenterprise
distributingacontrolledsubstance popularlyknownasecstasy
 Aftera monthafterjoiningthe conspiracyhe stoppedusingecstasy
 A fewmonthslaterinSeptember,withdrew fromthe conspiracy
 Graduatedfromcollege in2002 and movedto Arizonaandhasn’tusedan illegal drugs
 Gets initial interviewfromfederalagentsandadmitstohislimitedparticipationinthe
distributionof ecstasy
 April 28, 2004 an indictmentwasreturnedinthe SouthernDistrictof Iowacharginghim
and 7 othersforparticipatinginaconspiracyto distribute ecstasy,cocaine and
marijuanathatbeganin May 1996 and continuedthroughOctober30, 2002
 Movesback to Iowaand surrenderstothe authorities
 Entersintoa pleaagreementwiththe governmentandstipulatedthathe was
responsible fordistributingatleast2500 gramsof ecstasyor the equivalentof atleast
87.5 kilogramsof marijuana.Inthisagreementthe governmentacknowledgedthathe
had intenttostopdeliveringecstasy andalsoprovidedthatrecentchangesinthe
guidelinesenhancedthe recommendedpunishmentfordistributingecstasyweren’t
applicable toGall because he hadwithdrawnfromthe conspiracypriortothe effective
datesof those changes
 In presentencereport,the probationofficerconcludedthatGall hadno significant
criminal history,he isn’tamanager/leader/organizerandthathisoffense had no
weaponinvolvement.Alsostatedthathe truthfullyprovidedthe governmentall
evidence concerningthe allegedoffensesbutthe evidence wasn’tuseful because he
providednonewinformation.Alsodescribedhissubstantial druguse priortothe
offense andthe absence of anysuchin recentyearsandrecommendedasentencing
range of 30-37 monthsof imprisonment.
 Sentence hearingwasheldonMay27, 2005
 DistrictJudge sentencedGall toprobationforaterm of 36 monthsusing18 U.S.C. 3553
(a) and also implieda3 yr regime of alcohol anddrug testing
 Court of Appealsreversedandremandedforresentencingandstatedthathissentence
was extraordinaryandamountedtoadownwardvariance
2. Issue
Coulda reasonable juristconcludethata sentence of probationwassufficientinthiscase to
serve the purposesof punishmentsetoutin18 U.S.C.Statute 3553 (a)(2)?
Was the appropriatenessof the sentence explained?
3. Holdings
No
No
4. Reasoning
You mustnot presume thatthe Guidelinesrange isreasonable butmustanindividualized
assessmentbasedonthe factspermitted.Onthe abuse-of-discretionreview,the 8th
Circuitgave
virtuallynodeference tothe districtcourt’sdecisionthatthe variance wasjustified.The Circuit
clearlydisagreedwiththe districtcourt’sdecisionbutitwasnot for the court to decide de novo.
Theyshould’ve givendue deference tothe districtcourt’sreasonedandreasonabledecision
that the statute 3553 (a) factors,on the whole,justifiedthe sentence. Theyalsousedthe
UnitedStatesv.Bookercase to determine whatreasonableabuse-of-discretionstandards
appliestoappellate reviewof sentencingdecisions.

More Related Content

More from Harold Sowards

Us v. garcia
Us v. garciaUs v. garcia
Us v. garcia
Harold Sowards
 
Us v. ancheta
Us v. anchetaUs v. ancheta
Us v. ancheta
Harold Sowards
 
State v. zeta chi fraternity
State v. zeta chi fraternityState v. zeta chi fraternity
State v. zeta chi fraternity
Harold Sowards
 
State v. ulvinen
State v. ulvinenState v. ulvinen
State v. ulvinen
Harold Sowards
 
State v. tomaino
State v. tomainoState v. tomaino
State v. tomaino
Harold Sowards
 
State v. stark
State v. starkState v. stark
State v. stark
Harold Sowards
 
State v. snowden
State v. snowdenState v. snowden
State v. snowden
Harold Sowards
 
State v. sexton
State v. sextonState v. sexton
State v. sexton
Harold Sowards
 
State v. schleifer
State v. schleiferState v. schleifer
State v. schleifer
Harold Sowards
 
State v. ninham
State v. ninhamState v. ninham
State v. ninham
Harold Sowards
 
State v. metzger
State v. metzgerState v. metzger
State v. metzger
Harold Sowards
 
State v. mays
State v. maysState v. mays
State v. mays
Harold Sowards
 
State v. loge
State v. logeState v. loge
State v. loge
Harold Sowards
 
State v. kimball
State v. kimballState v. kimball
State v. kimball
Harold Sowards
 
State v. jantzi
State v. jantziState v. jantzi
State v. jantzi
Harold Sowards
 
State v. hoying
State v. hoyingState v. hoying
State v. hoying
Harold Sowards
 
State v. chism
State v. chismState v. chism
State v. chism
Harold Sowards
 
State v. chaney
State v. chaneyState v. chaney
State v. chaney
Harold Sowards
 
State v. burrell
State v. burrellState v. burrell
State v. burrell
Harold Sowards
 
State v. akers
State v. akersState v. akers
State v. akers
Harold Sowards
 

More from Harold Sowards (20)

Us v. garcia
Us v. garciaUs v. garcia
Us v. garcia
 
Us v. ancheta
Us v. anchetaUs v. ancheta
Us v. ancheta
 
State v. zeta chi fraternity
State v. zeta chi fraternityState v. zeta chi fraternity
State v. zeta chi fraternity
 
State v. ulvinen
State v. ulvinenState v. ulvinen
State v. ulvinen
 
State v. tomaino
State v. tomainoState v. tomaino
State v. tomaino
 
State v. stark
State v. starkState v. stark
State v. stark
 
State v. snowden
State v. snowdenState v. snowden
State v. snowden
 
State v. sexton
State v. sextonState v. sexton
State v. sexton
 
State v. schleifer
State v. schleiferState v. schleifer
State v. schleifer
 
State v. ninham
State v. ninhamState v. ninham
State v. ninham
 
State v. metzger
State v. metzgerState v. metzger
State v. metzger
 
State v. mays
State v. maysState v. mays
State v. mays
 
State v. loge
State v. logeState v. loge
State v. loge
 
State v. kimball
State v. kimballState v. kimball
State v. kimball
 
State v. jantzi
State v. jantziState v. jantzi
State v. jantzi
 
State v. hoying
State v. hoyingState v. hoying
State v. hoying
 
State v. chism
State v. chismState v. chism
State v. chism
 
State v. chaney
State v. chaneyState v. chaney
State v. chaney
 
State v. burrell
State v. burrellState v. burrell
State v. burrell
 
State v. akers
State v. akersState v. akers
State v. akers
 

Recently uploaded

fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
20jcoello
 
快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样
快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样
快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样
15e6o6u
 
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Massimo Talia
 
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
lawyersonia
 
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdfV.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
bhavenpr
 
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptxReceivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Godwin Emmanuel Oyedokun MBA MSc PhD FCA FCTI FCNA CFE FFAR
 
原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样
原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样
原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样
osenwakm
 
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
SKshi
 
一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理
gjsma0ep
 
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point PresentationLifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
seri bangash
 
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer ComplaintsIntegrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
seoglobal20
 
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Sangyun Lee
 
Business Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita sahaBusiness Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita saha
sunitasaha5
 
在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
15e6o6u
 
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfThe Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
veteranlegal
 
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxGenocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
MasoudZamani13
 
Anti Money Laundering & know client.pptx
Anti Money Laundering & know client.pptxAnti Money Laundering & know client.pptx
Anti Money Laundering & know client.pptx
TarunKumarSingh37
 
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in ItalyThe Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
BridgeWest.eu
 
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at SeaSan Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
Justin Ordoyo
 
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal FrameworkCorporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
devaki57
 

Recently uploaded (20)

fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
 
快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样
快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样
快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样
 
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
 
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
 
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdfV.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
 
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptxReceivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
 
原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样
原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样
原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样
 
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
 
一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理
 
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point PresentationLifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
 
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer ComplaintsIntegrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
 
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
 
Business Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita sahaBusiness Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita saha
 
在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
 
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfThe Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
 
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxGenocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
 
Anti Money Laundering & know client.pptx
Anti Money Laundering & know client.pptxAnti Money Laundering & know client.pptx
Anti Money Laundering & know client.pptx
 
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in ItalyThe Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
 
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at SeaSan Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
 
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal FrameworkCorporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
 

Gall v. us

  • 1. HaroldSowards CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30 8/31/15 Gall v. US 552 U.S. 38 (2007) 1. Facts  Brian Michael Gall convicted(afterpleadingguilty)inthe U.S.DistrictCourt forthe SouthernDistrictforIowaof conspiracytodistribute ecstasyandwassentencedto36 monthsof probation  Governmentappealedandchallengedthe sentence  8th CircuitCourtof Appealsremandedforresentencingandcertiorari wasgranted  In Feb.or March 2000, Gall invitedbyLuke Rinderknechttojoinanongoingenterprise distributingacontrolledsubstance popularlyknownasecstasy  Aftera monthafterjoiningthe conspiracyhe stoppedusingecstasy  A fewmonthslaterinSeptember,withdrew fromthe conspiracy  Graduatedfromcollege in2002 and movedto Arizonaandhasn’tusedan illegal drugs  Gets initial interviewfromfederalagentsandadmitstohislimitedparticipationinthe distributionof ecstasy  April 28, 2004 an indictmentwasreturnedinthe SouthernDistrictof Iowacharginghim and 7 othersforparticipatinginaconspiracyto distribute ecstasy,cocaine and marijuanathatbeganin May 1996 and continuedthroughOctober30, 2002  Movesback to Iowaand surrenderstothe authorities  Entersintoa pleaagreementwiththe governmentandstipulatedthathe was responsible fordistributingatleast2500 gramsof ecstasyor the equivalentof atleast 87.5 kilogramsof marijuana.Inthisagreementthe governmentacknowledgedthathe had intenttostopdeliveringecstasy andalsoprovidedthatrecentchangesinthe guidelinesenhancedthe recommendedpunishmentfordistributingecstasyweren’t applicable toGall because he hadwithdrawnfromthe conspiracypriortothe effective datesof those changes  In presentencereport,the probationofficerconcludedthatGall hadno significant criminal history,he isn’tamanager/leader/organizerandthathisoffense had no weaponinvolvement.Alsostatedthathe truthfullyprovidedthe governmentall evidence concerningthe allegedoffensesbutthe evidence wasn’tuseful because he providednonewinformation.Alsodescribedhissubstantial druguse priortothe offense andthe absence of anysuchin recentyearsandrecommendedasentencing range of 30-37 monthsof imprisonment.  Sentence hearingwasheldonMay27, 2005  DistrictJudge sentencedGall toprobationforaterm of 36 monthsusing18 U.S.C. 3553 (a) and also implieda3 yr regime of alcohol anddrug testing  Court of Appealsreversedandremandedforresentencingandstatedthathissentence was extraordinaryandamountedtoadownwardvariance
  • 2. 2. Issue Coulda reasonable juristconcludethata sentence of probationwassufficientinthiscase to serve the purposesof punishmentsetoutin18 U.S.C.Statute 3553 (a)(2)? Was the appropriatenessof the sentence explained? 3. Holdings No No 4. Reasoning You mustnot presume thatthe Guidelinesrange isreasonable butmustanindividualized assessmentbasedonthe factspermitted.Onthe abuse-of-discretionreview,the 8th Circuitgave virtuallynodeference tothe districtcourt’sdecisionthatthe variance wasjustified.The Circuit clearlydisagreedwiththe districtcourt’sdecisionbutitwasnot for the court to decide de novo. Theyshould’ve givendue deference tothe districtcourt’sreasonedandreasonabledecision that the statute 3553 (a) factors,on the whole,justifiedthe sentence. Theyalsousedthe UnitedStatesv.Bookercase to determine whatreasonableabuse-of-discretionstandards appliestoappellate reviewof sentencingdecisions.