United States v. Carty , 465 F.3d 976 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                   FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,             
    Plaintiff-Appellee,          No. 05-10200
    v.                             D.C. No.
    ALPHONSO KINZAR CARTY,                     CR-03-01135-RGS
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                   No. 05-30120
    Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No.
    v.                          CR-02-00079-12-
    JUAN ANTONIO ZAVALA,                             BLW
    Defendant-Appellant.
            ORDER
    Filed August 25, 2006
    Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Circuit Judge.
    ORDER
    The court invites supplemental briefs by the parties
    addressing some or all of the following questions on the role
    of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in a district court’s
    sentencing decision after United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005):
    1.   Do we have jurisdiction to review appeals of
    within-Guidelines range sentences?
    2.   If we have jurisdiction to review within-
    Guidelines range sentences, are such sentences
    10645
    10646               UNITED STATES v. CARTY
    entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, or
    should we review such sentences no differently
    than we review outside-Guidelines range sen-
    tences? If within-Guidelines range sentences are
    entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, is
    this presumption conclusive? Rebuttable? If
    rebuttable, how can such a presumption be
    rebutted?
    3.   How should we review a post-Booker sentence
    for reasonableness? Do we review only whether
    the district court complied with Booker’s man-
    date to consider the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors?
    If so, is this review de novo? Do we indepen-
    dently review the sentence imposed for reason-
    ableness? If so, how do we determine whether a
    sentence is reasonable? What legal and factual
    matters, if any, must we consider? Is this review
    for abuse of discretion? Are factual findings
    decided by the district court reviewed for clear
    error, abuse of discretion, or on some other stan-
    dard of review? Does it matter whether the find-
    ings are pertinent to the calculation of the
    advisory Guidelines range or pertinent to the
    application of the other 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) fac-
    tors?
    4.   What procedure is a district court required to
    follow in sentencing a defendant within the
    advisory Guidelines range? In particular, what
    should be the district court’s duty, if any, to
    articulate its consideration of the section 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors?
    5.   If distinct from the procedure for within-
    Guidelines range sentences, what procedure is a
    district court required to follow in sentencing a
    UNITED STATES v. CARTY                10647
    defendant above or below the advisory Guide-
    lines range?
    6.   What weight does the advisory Guidelines range
    have, in relation to other 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    factors? In conducting a sentencing proceeding,
    may a district judge announce that he will
    impose a sentence within the advisory Guide-
    lines range unless the parties present compelling
    reasons for imposing a sentence outside of that
    range? On review, should we determine whether
    the district court has given the advisory Guide-
    lines range the appropriate weight, and if so,
    how?
    Briefs responding to this order shall be filed no later than
    September 15, 2006. Any person or entity wishing to file a
    brief as an amicus curiae in response to this order is granted
    leave to do so pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a).
    PRINTED FOR
    ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
    BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
    The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
    © 2006 Thomson/West.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-10200

Citation Numbers: 465 F.3d 976

Filed Date: 8/25/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023