Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Second Circuit Sentencing Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Second Circuit Sentencing Blog

Is Substantive Reasonableness Review A Balancing Test?

ADVERTISEMENTS

United States v. Ull, No. 09-0713-cr (2d Cir. March 24, 2010) (found here)

It's not always clear what substantive reasonableness review means, other than that the Second Circuit patrols the outer boundaries of sentences and largely defers to the judgment of the district court. In Ull, we get a little more of a taste of what that substantive review entails. Specifically, Ull challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, which was below the range of imprisonment recommended by the advisory Guidelines. In discussing that challenge, the Second Circuit stated as follows:

Nor was the sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court appropriately took into account the severity of Ull's conduct, the extent of the harm inflicted on the victims, and the fact that -- despite the evidence of Ull's mental illness -- there was no evidence whatever that she lacked the capacity to control her behavior. The sentence explicitly balanced an understanding that the defendant's mental illness contributed to her offense, with the need for promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment, deterring defendant and others from committing similar offenses in the future, and protecting the public from further criminality.

So, is substantive reasonableness review really just a balancing test? And, if so, what are the criteria for that test?

Full post as published by Second Circuit Sentencing Blog on March 24, 2010 (boomark / email).