The ruling, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, "simply recognizes the real-world circumstance that when the judge's discretionary decision accords with the Commission's view . . . it is probable that the sentence is reasonable."

The court's decision in Rita v. U.S. was the latest in a line of cases that have been redefining criminal sentencing since the court ruled in 2000 that the Constitution requires a jury to prove every fact that a judge might use to increase a defendant's sentence.

In 2005, the court ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines - rules designed to ensure that similar crimes be punished similarly across the country - ran afoul of the jury-trial requirement. But it decided that the remedy was to make the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, as they had been.

The case the court decided yesterday was meant to help define advisory.

Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., upheld the sentence, saying that within-guidelines penalties are "presumptively reasonable."

This pattern has been repeated nationwide since the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling.

In that sense, legal analysts said, the court's decision at least left defendants no worse off than they had been.

In his dissent, Justice David H. Souter said that a presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences creates "gravitational pull" on judges, moving them toward reliance on the guidelines, and making it unclear what was accomplished by declaring the guidelines advisory in the first place.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with Breyer, wholly or in part.

In the past, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg have joined Souter in supporting a strong right to a jury trial on all sentencing factors. But their acquiescence in yesterday's ruling appeared to reflect their belief that the court's 2005 decision was entitled to respect as precedent.

The guidelines set rules for judges to calculate punishment and attempt to reduce wide disparities in sentences for the same crime.

But critics of the guidelines say they often impose overly harsh sentences and take away a judge's discretion to look at the facts of the case and fit an appropriate punishment for each individual.

The ruling involved Victor Rita, who received 33 months in prison for making false statements during an investigation of illegal trafficking in machine gun kits. His sentence was at the bottom of the guideline range of 33 to 41 months.

Rita had sought a sentence lower than 33 months, based on his physical condition -- he has diabetes and other illnesses -- his likely vulnerability in prison and his military service in Vietnam and in Operation Desert Storm.

The Supreme Court upheld a U.S. appeals court's ruling that found Rita's sentence to be reasonable.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the majority opinion that the judge in the case properly analyzed the relevant factors and gave legally sufficient reasons for the sentence.

The ruling followed up on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in 2005 that federal judges no longer were bound by the sentencing guidelines that had been in effect for nearly 20 years, but must consult them and take them into account.

Justice David Souter dissented in Thursday's decision and said he would reject the presumption of reasonableness adopted in the case. He also urged Congress to revisit the issue of guidelines.

Police say a motorcyclist and the woman riding with him were going more than 70 miles an hour -- and neither was wearing a helmet -- when the bike hit street sign and a concrete staircase in York County.

Thirty-four-year-old George Sparks Junior of Windsor pleaded guilty Tuesday to homicide by vehicle, reckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol in the September 17th crash that killed 34-year-old Rhea Baldwin of Airville. Common Pleas Judge Penny Blackwell said Sparks' blood-alcohol level was zero-point-19 percent, more than twice the legal limit.

Sparks agreed to serve one to seven years in prison, have no alcohol for seven years, and turn in his motorcycle license. He could have been sentenced to more than 17 years in prison. Blackwell scheduled sentencing for July 23rd.

A former high school teacher has pleaded guilty to having sex with a 17-year-old boy on the school's football team.

33-year-old Darcie Esson pleaded guilty yesterday to one count of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust. Prosecutors dropped two other sexual assault charges as part of a plea deal.

Esson faces a sentence ranging from probation to an indeterminate life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Prosecutors say Esson had sex with the teen in a Glenwood Springs motel room in November while the Elizabeth High School football team was out of town for a playoff game.

Authorities say Esson's two young children and a teenage baby sitter were asleep in the room at the time.

The school is in Parker, about 135 miles east of Glenwood Springs. An arrest warrant affidavit says Esson had no official role in the team's trip.

School Superintendent Bob Neel says Esson resigned her teaching job in December.

Earlier this month, former EBS Chief Operating Officer Kevin Hannon was sentenced to two years in prison and fined $125,000 for defrauding investors. Hannon also was sentenced subject to a plea deal, but was convicted of lesser crimes and was facing a maximum of 5 years in prison.

The state argued that because Brendlin was not the driver of the car, he was not the subject of the illegal stop, and so did not have the right to have the evidence suppressed because of the stop's illegality. In the unanimous opinion written by David Souter, the Court found:

Brendlin was seized because no reasonable person in his position when the car was stopped would have believed himself free to "terminate the encounter" between the police and himself. Bostick, supra, at 436. Any reasonable passenger would have understood the officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission.