United States v. Orthofix, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
YOUNG, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
For seventeen years, this Court unconstitutionally sentenced offenders in accordance with an oxymoron-mandatory guidelines. Even after the Supreme Court finally put paid to this practice, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and recalled district judges to their duty to exercise wise discretion in sentencing offenders, I continued, .rather reflexively,1 to accept “take it or leave it” pleas from corporate criminals in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (known commonly as “(C)…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Gall v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re NexiumDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
- In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015
- United States v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2017