United States v. Matera, et al., Docket Nos. 05-0392-cr (L), 05-4259-cr (con), 05-4289-cr (con) (2d Cir. May 30, 2007) (found here)
Having just returned from the Sixteenth Annual National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in Salt Lake City, UT -- at which the nationwide reversal trend for below-Guidelines sentences was a topic of great debate -- I was pleased to read this little nugget from the Second Circuit (even though in saying so it affirmed a challenged lengthy sentence):
A sentencing determination is reviewed for reasonableness. The reviewing court does not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing judge, but rather considers "whether the sentencing judge 'exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion[,] . . . committed an error of law in the course fo exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact."
Comments