APPELLATE REVIEW

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the standard of review that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) should apply to claims on appeal. Bufkin argues that the Veterans Court must review the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ and the Board of Veteran Appeals’ application of “the benefit of the doubt” where any evidence material to the veteran’s disability-benefits claim is in approximate balance. Further, Bufkin contends that in conducting this separate review, the Veterans Court is reviewing a matter of law, which requires a more demanding standard of review than clear error. McDonough counters that the Veterans Court is instead engaging in a factual review, arguing it should not reassess the facts to determine whether the benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies unless clearly erroneous. McDonough asserts that the Veterans Court need only consider whether the Department of Veterans Affairs properly applied the rule when raised. The outcome of this case has future implications for veterans’ disability benefits claims and the scope of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ powers.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether a court, in deciding not to grant a discretionary post-judgment sentencing revision under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in proportion to the amended Federal Sentencing Guidelines, must provide an explanation or can issue its decision through a preprinted form order containing standardized language. The Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits have held that § 3582(c)(2) does not require a judge to provide an explanation when refusing to grant a motion for a proportional sentencing reduction in accordance with the amended Guidelines. The Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, however, have found that judges are required to explain sentencing revision decisions. Petitioner Chavez-Meza argues that a judge must provide some explanation for a disproportional sentencing reduction when the reasons for the decision are not apparent from the record. Respondent United States argues that judges can use preprinted forms when granting sentencing revisions that are disproportional to the Guideline revisions, as long as the form order contains standardized language stating that the court has considered the policy and applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This case will clarify the extent to which application of the amended Guidelines reflects a bipartisan shift away from punitive sentences for drug offenses.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether a formal objection at sentencing is necessary for criminal defendants to receive reasonableness review of the length of their sentence upon appeal. Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez argues that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51 (“Rule 51”) only requires defense counsel to argue prior to sentencing that a certain sentence would be unreasonable, thereby rendering a formal post-sentencing objection unnecessary. The United States agrees and also argues against the Fifth Circuit’s requirement of a formal post-sentence objection. The Court appointed an Amicus to brief the opposing side of the issue. Amicus argues that both Petitioner and Respondent misinterpret Rule 51, and that defendants must clearly state their objection and its grounds to preserve an argument for reasonableness review on appeal. The outcome of this case has implications for how clearly defendants need to articulate their objections to a court’s sentence and for the consistency of court procedure across criminal and civil cases.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Sixth Amendment to the United States constitution provides:  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”  In Cuauhtémoc Gonzalez-Lopez’s criminal trial, the district court refused to allow Gonzalez-Lopez to hire the attorney of his choice.  On review, the Eighth Circuit held that this denial violated Gonzalez-Lopez’s Sixth Amendment right to proceed with the counsel of his choice. Gonzalez-Lopez argues that the Eighth Circuit’s holding that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right should stand. The government argues that the Eighth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ‘right to counsel’ decisions, which hold that a criminal defendant cannot obtain reversal of his conviction unless he establishes that an alleged error implicating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel compromised his right to a fair trial.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties