Chavez-meza v. United States
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 18, 2018 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 18, 2018
- Docket
- No. 17-5639
- Argued
- April 23, 2018
- Term
- October Term 2017
- Vote
- 5–3
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer (wrote), Justice Alito
- Dissenting
- Justice Kennedy (wrote), Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan
Oral argument transcript and advocates
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CHAVEZ-MEZA v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 17–5639. Argued April 23, 2018—Decided June 18, 2018 The Federal Sentencing Guidelines require a sentencing judge to first identify the recommended Guidelines sentencing range based on cer- tain offender and offense characteristics. The judge might choose a penalty within that Guidelines range, or the judge may “depart” or “vary” from the Guidelines and select a sentence outside the range. See United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 258–265. Either way, the judge must take into account certain statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U. S. C. §3553(a), and must “state in open court the reasons for [imposing] the particular sentence,” §3553(c). But when it comes to how detailed that statement of reasons must be, “[t]he law leaves much . . . to the judge’s own professional judgment.” Rita v. United States, 551 U. S. 338, 356. The…
Excerpt of a 41,135-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.