Case Citator › United States v. James Rattoballi

United States v. James Rattoballi

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
452 F.3d 127
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
32 of 32
Citing cases (total)
32
Treatment dates
2007
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States v. Rattoballi was abrogated in part by Kimbrough v. United States. Kimbrough allowed sentencing judges to vary from advisory Guidelines based on a policy disagreement, displacing Rattoballi's suggestion that a sentence resting on factors shared by defendants is inherently suspect.
More on how this was screened

The en banc Second Circuit identified that change in United States v. Cavera. Rattoballi's requirement for specific written reasons for a sentence outside the Guidelines remains in use. All 32 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

32 later cases cite United States v. James Rattoballi; 32 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. James Rattoballi?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court allowed judges to vary from advisory Guidelines on a policy ground, displacing Rattoballi's contrary suggestion about factors common to defendants.

    Kimbrough v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We hold that, under Booker, the cocaine Guidelines, like all other Guidelines, are advisory only, and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the crack/powder disparity effectively mandatory. A district judge must include the Guidelines range in the array of factors warranting consideration. The judge may determine, however, that, in the particular case, a within-Guidelines sentence is “greater than necessary” to serve the objectives of sentencing. 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a) (2000 ed. and Supp. V). In making that determination, the judge may consider the disparity between the Guidelines’ treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. James Rattoballi 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