Legal Opinion

United States v. Orthofix, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided July 26, 2013No. Criminal Action No. 12-10169-WGY, 12-10374-WGYPublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Gall v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re NexiumDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
  2. In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015
  3. United States v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API