U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari in two cases.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases, both addressing the scope of its earlier decision in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in which the court held that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were only advisory, not mandatory. Among the issues to be considered is one that has engendered not only a split among the circuits, but an intracircuit split within the Seventh Circuit: whether a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable. In U.S. v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005), the Seventh Circuit held that, when reviewing a guideline sentence, it will apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. However, in U.S. v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006), the court held there was no such presumption at the district court level. Shortly thereafter, a different panel held in U.S. v. Hankton, 463 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2006), that the presumption exists both on appeal, and at sentencing itself. The two cases, and the full statement of issues they present, are as follows: Claiborne v. U.S., 06-5618 1) Was the district court's choice of below-Guidelines sentence reasonable? 2) In making that determination, is it consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to require that a sentence which constitutes a substantial variance from the Guidelines be justified by extraordinary circumstances? Rita v. U.S., 06-5754 1) Was the district court's choice of within-Guidelines sentence reasonable? 2) In making that determination, is it...