Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


Irizarry v. United States

Docket No.: 06-7517
Certiorari Granted: 1/4/2008
Argued: April 15, 2008
Decided: June 12, 2008


Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court), Due Process, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Sixth Amendment, abuse of discretion, harmless error, sentencing guidelines

PartyNames: Richard Irizarry v. United States
Petitioner: Richard Irizarry
Respondent: United States

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Citation: 458 F3d 1208
Supreme Court Docket

Richard Irizarry
United States
553 U.S. 708 (2008)
Question Presented:

Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h), and the holding in Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) requiring a court to provide reasonable notice to the parties that it is contemplating a departure from the applicable sentencing guideline range on a ground not identified for departure either in the presentence report or in a party's prehearing submission, has any continuing application in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).


Is a judge required to give both parties advance notice before imposing a criminal sentence that departs from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?



Irizarry v. United States

April 15, 2008

Holding: below filed
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:

Warning: Use of undefined constant caseTitle - assumed 'caseTitle' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1147

Irizarry v. United States
Case Documents

1Irizarry v. United States Oral Argument Transcript
2Irizarry v. United States Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
3Irizarry v. United States Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
4Slip Opinion in Irizarry v. United States (Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens)
Additional documents for this case are pending review.