Legal Opinion

United States v. Joseph Krul

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided December 18, 2014No. 13-2451PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J., joined by Van Tatenhove, D.J.,

GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 376-83), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.

OPINION

ROGERS, Circuit Judge.

The defendant, Joseph Michael Krul, appeals his sentence on the ground that the sentencing judge based the length of his sentence on rehabilitative goals, contrary to the holding of Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011). That case, however, requires reversal only where there is an identifiable basis for concluding that the district court based the length of the sentence of incarceration in part on rehabilitation. In this case there is no such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tapia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. United States v. Daniel W. DuranCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  3. United States v. WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. United States v. Ernest AdamsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
  2. United States v. Jesse BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022
  3. United States v. John GesingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
  4. Blank v. Livonia Public SchoolsDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2025
  5. Petty v. Garden City Public SchoolsDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2025

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API