context: As noted above, the panel in Carpenter and the Love concurrence found it absurd to imagine that the discretion provided under SS 401 meant that criminal contempt may be punished in the same manner as terrorists or murders. The response of courts for hundreds of years to the same unbounded discretion has not been to construct an artificial and illusory limit on courts' discretion, but to make sure that the exercise of the courts' discretion is done with the utmost sense of responsibility and circumscription. When a reviewing court determines that a sentencing court has failed in this charge, the sentence is rightfully revised.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 371 F.3d 42, 48-49
citation_a.parenthetical: reducing contemnor's sentence from twelve months to six because he did not receive a jury trial
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Gomez, 553 F.2d 958 (5th Cir.1977) (fifteen-year sentence reduced to a two-year sentence); United States v. Leyva, 513 F.2d 774 (5th Cir.1975) (thirty-five year sentence reduced to two years); United States v. Marshall, 371 F.3d 42, 48-49 (2d Cir.2004) (reducing contemnor’s sentence from twelve months to six because he did not receive a jury trial); see also United States v. Roach, 108 F.3d 1477, 1484-85 (C.A.D.C.1997) (noting appellate court’s responsibility to review district court’s sentence, but choosing instead to remand for district court to fashion appropriate sentence), vacated on other grounds United States v. Roach, 136 F.3d 794 (C.A.D.C.1998).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 108 F.3d 1477, 1484-85
citation_b.parenthetical: noting appellate court's responsibility to review district court's sentence, but choosing instead to remand for district court to fashion appropriate sentence
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Gomez, 553 F.2d 958 (5th Cir.1977) (fifteen-year sentence reduced to a two-year sentence); United States v. Leyva, 513 F.2d 774 (5th Cir.1975) (thirty-five year sentence reduced to two years); United States v. Marshall, 371 F.3d 42, 48-49 (2d Cir.2004) (reducing contemnor’s sentence from twelve months to six because he did not receive a jury trial); see also United States v. Roach, 108 F.3d 1477, 1484-85 (C.A.D.C.1997) (noting appellate court’s responsibility to review district court’s sentence, but choosing instead to remand for district court to fashion appropriate sentence), vacated on other grounds United States v. Roach, 136 F.3d 794 (C.A.D.C.1998).