{"argument_date":"2001-01-08T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-01-08T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","paragraphs":["Dean Strang argued for de novo review to ensure uniformity in federal sentencing.","Wolfson argued the court of appeals properly applied a deferential standard.","chief_justice_rehnquist_closed_the_argument_by_stating_the_case_was_submitted."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 43-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-5","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 3-5"}]}],"caption":"Buford v. United States","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.482153Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The dispute centers on whether appellate courts must re-evaluate sentencing facts or accept the trial judge's findings.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 43-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-15"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-01-08T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-9073.html","primary_docket":"99-9073","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:14:25.664502Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case tests the standard of review for federal sentencing decisions. the side that brought the case seeks uniform application of sentencing rules. The government argues for deference to trial court expertise."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 43-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-15"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 8, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case wants de novo review to ensure uniform sentencing.","The government wants deferential review to respect trial court discretion."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 43-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-15"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case argues uniformity requires fresh appellate review of mixed questions.","The government argues deference is proper due to the trial court's role."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 43-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-15"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-5","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 3-5"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["The standard of review shapes how consistently federal courts apply sentencing guidelines. It determines whether trial judges hold final authority over sentencing facts. This affects the predictability of criminal penalties nationwide."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 43-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-15"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-5","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 3-5"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-9073-buford-v-united-states","term":"2000","title":"Should federal courts review sentencing decisions with fresh eyes or defer to trial judges?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 43-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-9073.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-15"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}