United States v. Gementera
| United States v. Gementera | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Full case name | United States v. Gementera |
| Argued | May 11, 2004 |
| Decided | August 9, 2004 |
| Citation | 379 F.3d 596 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Eugene E. Siler, Jr. (6th Cir.), Michael Daly Hawkins |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Scannlain, joined by Siler |
| Dissent | Hawkins |
| Laws applied | |
| Sentencing Reform Act; U.S. Const. amend. VIII | |
.jpg)
United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004),[1] was a case decided by the 9th Circuit that held that a judge had the statutory authority to impose a sentence for mail theft that involved public reintegrative shaming because the punishment was reasonably related to the statutory objective of rehabilitation. The punishment required that the thief wear a sandwich board sign stating, "I stole mail; this is my punishment", while standing for eight hours outside of a San Francisco postal facility.[2][3]
References
- ^ United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004).
- ^ Gementera, 379 F.3d at 599.
- ^ Dressler, J. Understanding Criminal Law, Fifth Edition. Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Newark, NJ: 2009, p. 24
External links
- Text of United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004) is available from: CourtListener Justia OpenJurist Google Scholar
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wik.ipedia.Pro by expanding it. |
See what we do next...
OR
By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.
Success: You're subscribed now !