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.

All labels observed (4)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
criminal law case ⓘ
federal sentencing case ⓘ
alsoKnownAs U.S. v. Fanfan ⓘ
United States v. Ducan Fanfan (Booker companion case) ⓘ
areaOfLaw constitutional law ⓘ
sentencing law ⓘ
arguedWith United States v. Booker ⓘ
citation 543 U.S. 220 ⓘ
citationStyle case law ⓘ
constitutionalProvision Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedWith United States v. Booker ⓘ
decisionDate 2005-01-12 ⓘ
docketNumber 03-47 ⓘ
followedBy United States v. Booker ⓘ
fullName United States v. Ducan Fanfan ⓘ
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. ⓘ
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 ⓘ
lowerCourtHolding Mandatory application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines based on judicial fact-finding was unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington. ⓘ
lowerCourtJudge D. Brock Hornby ⓘ
petitioner United States ⓘ
precedent Apprendi v. New Jersey ⓘ
Blakely v. Washington ⓘ
relatedCase Apprendi v. New Jersey ⓘ
Blakely v. Washington ⓘ
United States v. Booker ⓘ
relatedConcept advisory guidelines ⓘ
judicial fact-finding ⓘ
jury trial right ⓘ
sentencing enhancements ⓘ
relatedTo United States Sentencing Guidelines ⓘ
federal sentencing guidelines ⓘ
respondent Ducan Fanfan ⓘ
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 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

United States v. Booker → relatedCase → United States v. Fanfan ⓘ
United States v. Fanfan → fullName → United States v. Ducan Fanfan ⓘ
linked to: United States v. Fanfan
United States v. Fanfan → alsoKnownAs → U.S. v. Fanfan ⓘ
linked to: United States v. Fanfan
United States v. Fanfan → alsoKnownAs → United States v. Ducan Fanfan (Booker companion case) ⓘ
linked to: United States v. Fanfan