# Gall v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · December 10, 2007 · 552 U.S. 38

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435290

## Case

- **Full name:** Gall v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** December 10, 2007
- **Citations:** 552 U.S. 38; 128 S. Ct. 586; 169 L. Ed. 2d 445; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 13083
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thomas
- **Judges:** Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Alito
- **Cited by:** 20,113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435290

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that: despite the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, they remain “the starting point and the initial benchmark” of a district court’s sentencing analysis; the “district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Gui…
- explaining that a criminal sentence is 1 I would not reach whether my proposed Excessive Fines Clause test for civil fines also applies to criminal fines. Unlike civil fines, criminal fines are already governed by the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors laid out in 18 U.S.C.…
- concluding, in upholding a sentence of probation when the Guidelines sentencing range was 30 to 37 months of imprisonment, that “[g]iven the dramatic contrast between Gall's behavior before he joined the conspiracy and his conduct after withdrawing, it was not unreasonable for…
- holding that a sentence is procedurally reasonable if "the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, …
- stating appellate courts must first "ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, select…

## Opinion text

Justice Thomas,
dissenting.
Consistent with my dissenting opinion in Kimbrough v. United States, post, p. 114, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the District Court committed statutory error when it departed below the applicable Guidelines range.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435290. Public record. Not legal advice.