acting to reinforce the superstructure of appellate review
Readers interested in both the English sentencing system generally and the history and modern practice of appellate review
in England might consult Sentencing Guidelines, Exploring the English Model (Andrew Ashworth & Julian V.
34) Finding that the trial court's failure to make the required statutory findings constitutes reversible error, the Fourth District remanded the cause to the trial court for written statutory findings to facilitate meaningful appellate review
A final consideration is that Supreme Court appellate review
would have been only one tool among others that Congress could have used to address potential problems for federal law that might arise out of state criminal prosecutions.
If resolution of the underlying dispute requires more or less discretion on the part of the district judge, such as granting a trial continuance versus applying the specific language of a codified rule, (151) the standard of appellate review
should vary accordingly.
Part IV is a summary of appellate review
standards used by each
divests the rule of any difference from ordinary appellate review
standard of appellate review
with a de novo standard on the ultimate
In the twenty years since the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act, judges and scholars have advanced three substantial justifications for why appellate courts should defer to the judgments of their district court colleagues: (1) District judges, because of their day-to-day experience with sentencing, know more than appellate judges and are thus better equipped to make sentencing decisions; (2) district judges are able to get a "feel" for an individual case in a way that an appellate court, reviewing a paper trail, cannot; and (3) strong appellate review
would hurt the Sentencing Commission's ability to learn from the judgments of district courts.
Departures from these guidelines needed to be supported by reasons stated in the record and subject to appellate review
is, essentially, too bad: "While, as suggested above, the act of formulating reasons may further focus and concentrate the judge's mind, and demands an additional effort of self-expression, the requirement of reasons as such is directed only to having the trial judge articulate the thinking process that it is presumed has already occurred in a fashion sufficient to satisfy the demand of appellate review
Case law can be viewed as decisions that have passed through the prism of appellate review
Microsoft argued that the 'severity of the remedy and the significance of these cases make it more important, not less, that these appeals proceed through intermediate appellate review
in the normal course.
Jackson's decision, and the business restrictions that it proposes to impose upon Microsoft has been stayed pending appellate review
either at the USCA or the Supreme Court.
We think the scientific evidence we submitted supports that conclusion and we look forward to the appellate review
which we believe will substantiate our position.