Gall v. United States
E649386
Gall v. United States is a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified federal sentencing discretion by holding that appellate courts must review all sentences, including those outside the Sentencing Guidelines, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Gall v. United States canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7193355 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Gall v. United States Context triple: [United States v. Booker, subsequentInterpretationBy, Gall v. United States]
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
-
C.
Goldman v. United States
Goldman v. United States is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld warrantless electronic eavesdropping based on a narrow, property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, later limited by the Court’s shift to a privacy-based approach.
-
D.
Dorr v. United States
Dorr v. United States is a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the limited application of constitutional rights in unincorporated territories under the Insular Cases doctrine.
-
E.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Gall v. United States Target entity description: Gall v. United States is a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified federal sentencing discretion by holding that appellate courts must review all sentences, including those outside the Sentencing Guidelines, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
-
C.
Goldman v. United States
Goldman v. United States is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld warrantless electronic eavesdropping based on a narrow, property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, later limited by the Court’s shift to a privacy-based approach.
-
D.
Dorr v. United States
Dorr v. United States is a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the limited application of constitutional rights in unincorporated territories under the Insular Cases doctrine.
-
E.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal law case ⓘ sentencing law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
United States federal sentencing law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2007-10-02 ⓘ |
| citation | 552 U.S. 38 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2007-12-10 ⓘ |
| disposition | Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Antonin Scalia
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 06-7949 ⓘ |
| fullName | Gall v. United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
A sentence outside the Sentencing Guidelines is not presumptively unreasonable.
ⓘ
Appellate courts may not require extraordinary circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range. ⓘ Courts of appeals must review all sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range. ⓘ District courts may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal courts NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| keyPrinciple |
Appellate review of sentencing focuses on reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion, not de novo reweighing of factors.
ⓘ
Sentencing judges have substantial discretion to vary from the Guidelines based on §3553(a) factors. ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
federal sentencing guidelines
ⓘ
standard of appellate review for sentencing ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingCircuit | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 38 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Brian Michael Gall NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Kimbrough v. United States
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Rita v. United States NERFINISHED ⓘ United States Sentencing Guidelines NERFINISHED ⓘ United States v. Booker NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | reasonableness review of federal criminal sentences ⓘ |
| volume | 552 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Gall v. United States Description of subject: Gall v. United States is a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified federal sentencing discretion by holding that appellate courts must review all sentences, including those outside the Sentencing Guidelines, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.