Circuit insanity and Booker

I see that the fine folks over at Appellate Law & Practice have this post headlined “Insanity and Booker” which is focused on a First Circuit case that involves an insanity issue and a Booker remand.  (And Now the PRACDL Blog has this interesting post on this interesting First Circuit case.)  But the “Insanity and Booker” title seems like a fitting descrition for all the circuit Booker action these days. 

For example, as Appellate Law & Practice also notes here, today the Eleventh Circuit has given us 92 more pages on Booker plain error: Judge Carnes defends the Circuit’s stingy plain error approach as part of the Court’s denial of a rehearing en banc in Rodriguez (basics hereRodriguez development are linked here (and don’t forget to re-load your paper tray before hitting the print button).

Meanwhile, to complete our tour of the day’s circuit Booker action, I see that Appellate Law & Practice also has posts on other First Circuit Booker cases here and here, and a Second Circuit case here.  Also, I see more than a few notable Booker opinions from more than a few other circuits today (see, e.g., the work today from the Sixth Circuit here or from the Seventh Circuit here), which I hope time and energy might allow me to discuss later tonight.

UPDATE:  I just noticed that Judge Tjoflat quotes at length from my blog post here on pages 51-52 of the latest Rodriguez opinion.  I am inclined to say that this proves that some sanity prevails on the circuit courts.  But, of course, Judge Tjoflat is writing in dissent and, as noted here, he has a history of being kind to the blog.  Also, a quick read of Judge Carnes’ opinion, which has many rhetorical flourishes, suggests that he strongly believes that most of the other circuits have gone a bit insane in their approaches to Booker plain error.