United States v. Taryll Miller

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that: “A sentence within a properly ascertained range ... cannot be treated as unreasonable by reference to 3553(a)(6)”
• holding that neither Crawford nor the combination of Crawford and Booker extend the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause to sentencing proceedings
• noting that “§ 3553(a) . . . does not include a factor such as ‘the judge thinks the law misguided’”
• reciting the No. 05-3681 3 holding of United States v. Gipson, 425 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2005)
• prohibiting sentencing courts from selecting sentence based on their belief that law is misguided
• citing, inter alia, United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2005)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).