Talk:United States v. Booker

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Wow, does _this_ page need a lot of work! Booker is a hugely siginificant case in the federal sentencing field. Can anyone help? Sholom 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added background on the case and will add more when I have the time. The intro needs to have info on the implications based on the Booker ruling and the slew of appeals that followed by defendents. Assawyer 17:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how the cleanup tag has languished for a year, I'll take on the task of cleaning up. The decision is lengthy, and so it may take a while for me to discuss all the relevant aspects of the case. ---Axios023 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be completely rewritten as it appears to be largely copied from the sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Dissent

It’s missing dissent from Thomas. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/220/ 207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]