The plain error patterns continue

The Booker story in the circuits is now perhaps getting a bit boring, as circuits continue on their distinctive plain error paths.  For example, the Eleventh Circuit today continued its tough plain error approach by reissuing here its opinion in US v. Curtis denying a Blakely/Booker claim.  Meanwhile, late last week, the Second and Third and Ninth Circuits remanded cases on Booker grounds in their own distinctive ways.  See US v. Daidone, 2005 WL 435409 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2005); US v. Moore, 2005 WL 428785 (2d Cir. Feb. 24, 2005); US v. Able, 2005 WL 428758 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2005); US v. Sumner, 2005 WL 428832 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2005).

The most interesting of the recent Booker decisions comes from the Seventh Circuit per Judge Easterbrook.  Though US v. Lee, No. 03-4239 (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2005) (available here), essentially reiterates the court’s major plain error holding in Paladino (basics here), the tone of the opinion is essential Easterbrook as the Lee court details all the settings in which Booker remand might not be necessary.