Golden Gate University Law Review


Michael Guasco


This Note examines the limited-remand approach in comparison with the approaches taken by the different circuits. Part I discusses the history of the Sentencing Guidelines and the cases, up to and including Booker, that completely changed the way the Sentencing Guidelines were used. Part II sets forth the history of the traditional plain error standard of review and the contemporary "Plain Error Problem." Part III examines the limited-remand approach and compares it with the approach taken in other circuits. Part IV argues that the limited-remand approach is the best of a list of bad possible choices but that the Ninth Circuit should have imposed a higher burden of roof on defendants before they could obtain a limited remand. Finally, Part V concludes that although it alters the traditional plain-error standard of review, the limited-remand approach is the most consistent with the intent of the majority that authored the remedial portion of the Booker opinion but would be improved with a higher burden on defendants.

Included in

Criminal Law Commons