United States v. Booker
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The other reviewed opinions applied Booker, described Booker's own displacement of earlier precedent, rejected adverse-treatment arguments, or used nearby treatment language for unrelated authorities. CourtListener lists Duncan v. United States twice; that treatment is listed once.
23,205 later cases cite United States v. Booker; 1,183 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on United States v. Booker?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that Booker does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
State v. Merriweather · Ohio Court of Appeals, First District · filed
Merriweather raises sentencing issues, and, arguably, Blakely v. Washington (2004), ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , and United States v. Booker (2005), ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738 , set forth an applicable federal or state right. Nevertheless, those cases apply to "all cases on direct review or not yet final." State v. Bruce, 1st Dist. No. C-040421, 2005-Ohio-373 . They do not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Third Circuit declined to extend Booker to appellate jurisdiction over the extent of a discretionary Rule 35(b) sentence reduction.
United States v. McKnight · Third Circuit · filed
United States v. Booker, ... did not expand the situations in which a defendant may appeal a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) to include discretionary sentencing reductions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that Booker does not apply retroactively after direct review has ended.
State v. Macias · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second District · filed
While the second and third assignments contain correct statements, no remedy exists under R.C. 2953.23 where Booker and Blakely have no application to cases no longer under direct review, and these assignments are overruled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Southern District of New York held that Booker does not apply retroactively to a collateral challenge to a conviction already final when Booker was decided.
Santana v. United States · S.D.N.Y. · filed
This Circuit, however, has not applied ... Booker ... retroactively to cases on collateral review where the defendant’s conviction was final as of January 12, 2005. ... Therefore, ... Booker ... does not apply to Petitioner’s sentencing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that Booker is limited to cases pending on direct appeal and does not apply retroactively to completed cases.
State v. Cunningham · Ohio Court of Appeals, Third District · filed
Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of its holding in U.S. v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , to those cases pending on direct appeal. Thus, there is no authority for retroactive application of the holdings in these cases.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit declined to extend Booker's Guidelines-based definition of the statutory maximum to imprisonment imposed for supervised-release violations.
United States v. Ray · Ninth Circuit · filed
We now join our sister circuits in holding that ... Booker ... does not define the “statutory maximum” as the high end of the Guidelines range for sentences imposed for violations of supervised release. Instead, the definition of “statutory maximum” continues to come from the United States Code.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that Booker is limited to cases pending on direct appeal and does not apply retroactively after direct review has ended.
State v. Frenzel · Ohio Court of Appeals, Third District · filed
Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of its holding in U.S. v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , to those cases pending on direct appeal." Id. There is no authority for apply the holdings in these cases retroactively to cases without a pending direct appeal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of New York held that Booker's advisory-Guidelines rule does not apply in a Section 3582(c)(2) sentence-modification proceeding, where the Sentencing Commission's policy statement remains binding.
United States v. Cruz · E.D.N.Y. · filed
Booker Does Not Apply to § 3582(c)(2) Proceedings ... Since section 3582(c)(2)’s requirement that a district court consider whether its reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s Policy Statement is a limitation on a district court’s jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s recent Sixth Amendment sentencing jurisprudence, including ... Booker, ... is not applicable and the district court remains limited by the Policy Statement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Middle District of Florida declined to extend Booker to Section 3582 resentencing proceedings.
United States v. Atwell · M.D. Fla. · filed
However, having considered all available persuasive authority on the subject, this Court finds Judge Steele’s Opinion in ... United States v. Speights, ... to be a sound and accurate statement of the reasons why ... Booker ... does not apply to § 3582 resentencings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held that Booker does not apply retroactively on collateral review even to a sentence imposed after Blakely but before Booker.
Duncan v. United States · Sixth Circuit · filed
Thus, we decline Duncan's invitation to create this split and hold that the Supreme Court's decision in Booker is not retroactive on collateral review for sentences imposed after Blakely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit declined to extend Booker to authorize a sentence below the amended Guidelines range in a Section 3582(c)(2) proceeding.
United States v. Cunningham · Seventh Circuit · filed
Despite this broad language, we do not believe that the ... Booker ... remedy renders the limits set by the Sentencing Commission for section 3582(e)(2) proceedings advisory. ... Original sentencing proceedings and sentence modification proceedings are legally distinct from one another. ... Having chosen to create a modification mechanism, ... Booker ... does not require Congress to grant the district courts unfettered discretion in applying it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Booker and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace