United States v. Fanfan
E649384
United States v. Fanfan is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided alongside United States v. Booker that helped reshape federal sentencing by limiting mandatory guideline enhancements based on judicial fact-finding.
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal law case ⓘ federal sentencing case ⓘ |
| alsoKnownAs |
U.S. v. Fanfan
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States v. Ducan Fanfan (Booker companion case) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
sentencing law ⓘ |
| arguedWith | United States v. Booker NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation | 543 U.S. 220 ⓘ |
| citationStyle | case law ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedWith | United States v. Booker NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2005-01-12 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 03-47 ⓘ |
| followedBy | United States v. Booker NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| fullName | United States v. Ducan Fanfan NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Mandatory enhancement of a sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines based on judicial fact-finding violates the Sixth Amendment when it increases the sentence beyond that authorized by the jury verdict or defendant’s admissions.
ⓘ
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines cannot be applied as mandatory when they allow judges to find facts that increase sentences beyond the range supported by the jury verdict or plea. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| impact |
contributed to making the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory
ⓘ
expanded application of Apprendi and Blakely principles to the federal sentencing system ⓘ reshaped federal sentencing by limiting mandatory guideline enhancements based on judicial fact-finding ⓘ |
| issue | Whether judicial fact-finding under the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment jury trial right. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States District Court for the District of Maine NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| lowerCourtHolding | Mandatory application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines based on judicial fact-finding was unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington. ⓘ |
| lowerCourtJudge | D. Brock Hornby NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| precedent |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Blakely v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Blakely v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ United States v. Booker NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
advisory guidelines
ⓘ
judicial fact-finding ⓘ jury trial right ⓘ sentencing enhancements ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
United States Sentencing Guidelines
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
federal sentencing guidelines NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | Ducan Fanfan NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | Federal Sentencing Guidelines rendered advisory rather than mandatory when applied in conjunction with United States v. Booker. ⓘ |
| subject |
constitutionality of mandatory federal sentencing guidelines
ⓘ
limits on judicial discretion in sentencing ⓘ role of juries in determining facts that increase criminal sentences ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | federal criminal sentencing ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2004 ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.