Victor A. Rita v. United States (551 U.S. 338)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 21, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 551 U.S. 338 · 127 S. Ct. 2456
- Decided
- June 21, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The federal courts of appeals review federal sentences and set aside those they find “unreasonable.” See, e. g., United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 261-263 (2005). Several Circuits have held that, when doing so, they will presume that a sentence imposed within a properly calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines range is a reasonable sentence. See, e. g., 177 Fed. Appx. 357, 358 (CA4 2006) (per curiam) (case below); see also United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 2006) (USSG or Guidelines). The most important question before us is whether the law permits the courts of appeals to use this presumption. We hold that it does. I A The basic crime in this case concerns two false statements which Victor Rita, the petitioner, made under oath to a federal grand jury. The jury was investigating a gun company called InterOrdnance. Prosecutors believed that buyers of an InterOrdnance kit, called a “PPSH 41 machinegun ‘parts kit,’” could assemble a machinegun from the kit, that those kits consequently amounted to machineguns, and that Inter-Ordnance had not secured proper registrations for the importation of the guns. App. 7, 16-19, 21-22. Rita had bought a PPSH 41 machinegun parts kit. Rita, when contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), agreed to let a federal agent…
Excerpt of a 38,610-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.