Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Burns

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 27, 2007No. 04-2901, 04-2933Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBright, Circuit Judge

I concur in Judge Bye’s well-reasoned and thoughtfully written dissent. Judge Bye has capably discredited the majority’s statistically inaccurate and potentially harmful “extraordinary” standard for substantial assistance departures. Moreover, he has carefully described the level of assistance Burns provided to justify the district court’s departure. I write separately to express my views because I rely on a more pragmatic approach than statistical comparisons. For these additional reasons, I dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate the sentence. I concur in the majority’s decisions as…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. Darrin Todd HaackCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
  2. United States v. Deborah Marie DaltonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
  3. United States v. Kim Darby SaenzCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
  4. United States v. Jose PizanoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
  5. United States v. Andrew Jones, Also Known as Drew, United States of America v. Felton J. SykesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998

7 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