Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

United States v. Dylan Marshall

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided November 21, 2013No. 16-2440Published

1Concurring in the judgmentLawson, District Judge

The court today finds that Dylan Marshall’s sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment because chronologically he is an adult, and therefore he is not afforded the protection given juveniles under the Supreme Court’s juvenile sentencing cases'. The district court found that Marshall was a juvenile in all material respects except for his chrono*502logical age — a finding that the majority “do[es] not reject.” Because sentencing is an “individualized” task, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Marshall is not seeking a categorical ban on mandatory…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Gall v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  3. Lockyer v. AndradeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Eddings v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

24 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