Search results for: "sent" (2111 results)
Another “Crack” at Expanding Judicial Discretion Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 757, 804 (2009). See, e.g., Christopher E
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 36 PEPP. L. REV. 757, 804 (2009). 82. See, e.g., Christopher E. Smith & Cheryl D. Lema, Justice Clarence Thomas and
mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to
patent.” Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Pharma’s Nonobvious Problem, 12 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 375, 381 (2008). The footnote to that sentence quotes Graham’s
based on states’ rights principles. But, the true motives were patent. It is certainly possible that similar motives are among the mix of sentiments
bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing.” These sentiments were last expressed by the Court in 1982, in Plyler v. Doe, when the
punish the Times for carrying an antisegregation message, rather than to rectify reputational harm. Justice Goldberg separately shared this sentiment
dissenters—“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But underlying that phrase can be a sentiment closer to a
citizens alike. Ackerman beautifully captures his commitment with the sentiment: “What the rising generation chooses to remember—and what it chooses to
rather than to rectify reputational harm.59 Justice Goldberg separately shared this sentiment, observing that the case “conclusively demonstrate[d