Legal Opinion

United States v. Schnepper

District Court, D. Hawaii

Decided February 18, 2004No. CR. 02-00062 ACKPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO IMPOSE SENTENCE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES

KAY, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The so-called “Feeney Amendment,” Title IV of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (“PROTECT Act”), Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003), supplements the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“Reform Act”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3742 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 991-998, by imposing further constraints and, as many commentators have noted, burdensome tasks on the Judiciary. But it is not for the Court to question the wisdom of our…

2Cases cited54 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  3. Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Koon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Clinton v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. DetwilerDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2004
  2. North Carolina Ex Rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2006
  3. United States v. BaileyDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API