U. S. Supreme Court affirms the "reasonableness" of sentences imposed within federal sentencing commission guidelines.

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled, in an 8 to 2 fractured decision (with Justice Souter as the SOLE dissenter, who found the judicial presumption discussed below violative of the Sixth Amendment!) in the case of Rita v. United States, 551 U. S. _ (2007), No. 06-5754, that when federal Courts of Appeals review federal sentences in order to set aside those found to be "unreasonable" under the United States Sentencing Commission guidelines (including its amendments guidelines manual of Nov. 2006), a sentence imposed within a properly calculated guideline range is PRESUMPTIVELY "reasonable" within the law.

This means that Federal Appeals Courts will be less likely to reverse sentences that fall within the range of the federal sentencing guidelines on reasonableness grounds, as those sentences are now deemed reasonable.