explaining that the procedural reasonableness inquiry looks at the court’s explanation of the section 3553(a) factors while the substantive reasonableness inquiry examines whether the factors actually justified the resulting sentence
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the procedural reasonableness inquiry looks at the court’s explanation of the section 3553(a) factors while the substantive reasonableness inquiry examines whether the factors actually justified the resulting sentence
- concluding that, even though the respondent urged this Court to consider the claims not addressed by the district court, this Court could “do no more than remand the case to the district court to consider all remaining claims”
- holding that district court must resolve all claims for relief premised on alleged constitutional violations which are raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus whether habeas relief is granted or denied
- holding that, when a district court fails to resolve all claims for relief that a habeas petitioner raises, this Court will vacate the judgment and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COX, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
I concur in the judgment and join Part II of Chief Judge Tjoflat’s opinion. I adhere to the view that the panel opinion correctly resolved the issues addressed in Part I of the opinion. See Clisby v. Jones, 907 F.2d 1047 (11th Cir.1990).