S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
|
|
- Lester Simpson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys May 2016 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin and Duncan, L.L.C., 1240 Souridge Ct. #105, Hurst, Texas 76053; telephone (817) ; facsimile (817) ; sentenceptrs@hotmail.com. Sentencing Partners is published monly and attempts to report e most recent cases at can aid you in effectively representing your clients at sentencing and in keeping you advised of e developments in e United States Sentencing Guidelines. If ere is an issue of particular interest at you would like discussed in Sentencing Partners, please feel free to contact us. About Joaquin & Duncan, LLC: Joaquin and Duncan, L.L.C. is a law firm of federal sentencing attorneys who work on a contract basis wi criminal defense attorneys assisting in pre-plea advisement; review of presentence reports; preparation of objections and motions for downward departure; preparation of motions for bond; preparation of appellate briefs; preparation of 2255 petitions; and assistance in obtaining choice of prison or drug treatment program. Note: Articles and summaries contained herein are based on information obtained rough research using a variety of sources. While every effort is made to insure accuracy, e firm of Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C. its employees, agents, and associates cannot be held liable for any errors, omissions, or oversights contained herein. Readers are responsible for furer research of any case cited in is publication for which furer information is required. Inquiries are welcome via telephone, facsimile, , or U.S. mail New Quick Facts From Sentencing Commission The Sentencing Commission has published new Quick Facts dealing wi Immigration cases one dealing wi Alien Smuggling Offenses and e oer detailing Illegal Reentry Offenses. There were 71,003 cases reported to e Commission in fiscal year Of ose cases, 19,311 involved immigration offenses. Of ose cases, 11.8% involved alien smuggling and 81.9% involved illegal reentry. Below are highlights from bo publications: Alien Smuggling In fiscal year 2015, more an half of alien smuggling offenders were U.S. citizens (60.0%); Over one-half (56.6%) of alien smuggling offenders had little or no prior criminal history; Almost half (49.5%) of alien smuggling offenses involved e smuggling or transporting of fewer an six persons; Sentences were increased for 11.0% of offenders because one of e persons smuggled was an unaccompanied minor; Most alien smuggling cases did not involve e use of weapons (97.3%); The average sentence leng for alien smuggling offenders was 15 mons; The average sentence and e average guideline minimum for alien smuggling offenses have remained constant over e last five years Illegal Reentry In fiscal year 2015, most illegal reentry offenders were male (96.5%); The majority were Hispanic (98.7%); The average age of ese offenders at sentencing was 36 years; The most common Criminal History Category for ese offenders was Category III (26.2%); Illegal reentry sentences were increased in 69.3% of all cases because of e offender s criminal history pursuant to section 2L1.2; The average sentence leng for illegal reentry offenders was 16 mons, a decrease from 2011, when e average sentence was 19 mons; The average sentence and e average guideline minimum for illegal reentry offenders have decreased over e last five years. The Quick Facts are available at:
2 Case Summaries Sentencing Partners May 2016 Offense Conduct (Chapter 2) United States v. Martinez-Romero 2016 WL (5 Cir. 2016) Florida s kidnapping statute did not constitute crime of violence under 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) The defendant pled guilty to being in e United States illegally after having been deported. The PSR recommended a 16-level enhancement pursuant to 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based on a prior Florida conviction for attempted kidnapping. The PSR argued at e prior conviction constituted a crime of violence. The district court agreed and imposed a sentence of 46 mons. On appeal, e defendant argued at e prior conviction was not an enumerated offense and at it did not have as an element e use of force. The first question for e Fif Circuit was wheer e Florida attempted kidnapping conviction constituted an enumerated offense of kidnapping. The court s examination involved looking at e generic, contemporary meaning of kidnapping and employing a common sense approach, en analyzing e elements of e statute of conviction raer an e specifics of e defendant s conduct, and looking at only to e particular subdivision of e statute under which e defendant was convicted. Citing United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 477 F.3d 310 (5 Cir. 2007), where e court had analyzed e Tennessee kidnapping statute, e court noted at for purposes of determining wheer a state s kidnapping statute constituted an enumerated offense, e generic, contemporary offense of kidnapping included e following elements: (1) knowing confinement; (2) substantial interference wi e victim s liberty; (3) use of force, reat, or fraud; and (4) a substantial risk of bodily injury. Based on is analysis, e court held at e defendant s prior Florida conviction did not have e element of substantial interference wi e victim s liberty, nor did it require at e confinement or abduction to be achieved by e use of force, reats, or fraud, us it was not an enumerated offense. In addition, e Florida statute could be violated wiout e use of force; erefore, e kidnapping conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The sentence was vacated and remanded. United States v. Henry 2016 WL (6 Cir. 2016) Rifle had sufficient nexus to morphine pills to support 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement; 2K2.1(b)(5) firearms trafficking enhancement did not apply The ATF began investigating e defendant after a tip from an informant ( CI ). The CI, who had a prior felony conviction, approached e defendant regarding buying a 9mm pistol and twenty Percocet pills. The CI and a federal agent went to e defendant s house to complete e transaction. The agent expressed interest in purchasing an AK-47 rifle from e defendant, and told him at ey bo had prior felony convictions. At at meeting, e CI purchased a pistol for $350. Two weeks later, e agent and e CI traveled back to e s residence to
3 3 Sentencing Partners May 2016 purchase morphine pills and a rifle. Ultimately, e agent bought six pills containing morphine for $180 and e rifle for $950. The defendant pled guilty to one count of selling a firearm to a convicted felon, and one count of possession wi intent to distribute and distribution of morphine. The PSR calculated a base offense level of 20, under 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), because e AK-47 was a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. It applied a four-level increase for trafficking firearms under 2K2.1(b)(5) because e defendant transferred a firearm to e [CI] and one firearm to e undercover [agent] when he had reason to believe at bo individuals were convicted felons and eir possession of e firearms would be illegal. It also enhanced e offense level by four points under 2K2.1(b)(6) because e defendant possessed e rifle in connection wi anoer felony offense possession of morphine. The PSR calculated a sentencing range of 78 to 97 mons. The court varied downward to a sentence of 50 mons. On appeal, e defendant contended at e 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement (e In Connection Wi enhancement) did not apply because e rifle did not facilitate or have e potential to facilitate his drug offense. The Six Circuit disagreed, finding at e facts demonstrated e nexus between e rifle and e morphine pills. The sales of e gun and e drugs were negotiated, at least in part, during e same meeting, and ey occurred contemporaneously. [T]he fact at e sales of guns and drugs are negotiated as separate items does not prevent em from essentially amount[ing] to a single transaction. The defendant also argued at e 2K2.1(b)(5) trafficking enhancement did not apply because he did not sell multiple weapons to one person as e text of Application Note 13(A) contemplates: e enhancement applies to individuals who transfer multiple firearms to a single individual. The court agreed, noting at Application Note 13(A) defines trafficking, in relevant part, as transferr[ing]... two or more firearms to anoer individual. The plain language of e Note indicates at e transferring must be done to anoer individual, which strongly suggested at e transfer of one gun to two different people cannot be aggregated. Furer, is conclusion was also supported by e rule of lenity. Under e rule of lenity, [e]ven if one could conclude at ere were two rational readings of [a] Guideline[s provision], is Court would be bound to choose e less harsh reading. Even assuming [e defendant s] conduct fell wiin a plausible reading of ese provisions, e fact at anoer reasonable reading exists at would subject him to less punishment is grounds for applying e less severe interpretation. Accordingly, e district court erred in applying e 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement. United States v. Jesurum nd 2016 WL (2 Cir. 2016) Enhancement for 250 or more victims was warranted On March 26, 2014, e defendant pled guilty to wire fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity eft. The offense involved a cell phone cloning fraud where e defendant and his co-defendants fraudulently obtained information from Sprint customers and loaded at information onto oer phones. Charges for calls made on e cloned phones appeared on e customer s phone. The defendant and his coconspirators obtained and used information from tens of ousands of Sprint customers accounts. At sentencing, e district court applied a six-level enhancement pursuant 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) because e offense involved 250 or more victims. On appeal, e defendant
4 4 Sentencing Partners May 2016 argued at because ere was no evidence of any financial harm to Sprint customers whose cell phone identifiers were used, e only victim of e scheme was Sprint itself and e six-level enhancement was erefore inappropriate. The Second Circuit disagreed, noting at e cases relied upon by e defendant were all decided before e definition of victim was expanded by e Sentencing Commission in Here, e evidence demonstrated at more an 250 Sprint customers means of identification were used wiout auority. Pursuant to Application Note 4, victim includes any individual whose means of identification was used unlawfully or wiout auority. The fact at e customers suffered no financial loss was irrelevant. See also United States v. Harris, 791 F.3d 772 (7 Cir. 2015); United States v. Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719 (8 Cir. 2015). United States v. Scott 2016 WL (5 Cir. 2016) Record insufficient as to wheer defendant knowingly used peer-to-peer software The defendant pled guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 235 mons. That sentence was vacated after e defendant filed a 28 U.S.C motion alleging, among oer ings, at he pled guilty because his counsel assured him at e district judge had told a mutual friend at he would get hammered if he went to trial, but at e judge would take it easy on him by sentencing him to only five years if he pled guilty. The defendant again pled guilty, is time to e single count of possessing child pornography. The PSR explained at e defendant used LimeWire, a file-sharing program, to download and possess images of child pornography. Furer, e PSR stated at agents were able to download ree illicit videos from e shared file folder on e defendant s computer, and it was confirmed at ose videos had been downloaded from e internet. The PSR applied a five-level enhancement under 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for [d]istribution [of child pornography] for e receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a ing of value, but not for pecuniary gain. Citing United States v. Groce, 784 F.3d 291 (5 Cir. 2015), e district court adopted e PSR and imposed a sentence of 108 mons. On appeal, e defendant argued at ere was no evidence at he knowingly made child pornography available to oers; us, ere was no support for e 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement. The Fif Circuit agreed, explaining: we cannot ascertain wheer e district court made e requisite finding at [e defendant] knowingly used LimeWire to download and distribute child pornography wiin e meaning of 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). The only facts mentioned merely established how LimeWire worked and at e defendant used it to download child pornography - but say noing about [his] knowledge. Thus, e district court made no express finding at [e defendant] knowingly used LimeWire to exchange child pornography. Furer, ere was no evidence at e defendant knew at oers could download his files and knowingly let some users download from him... and e district court pointed to no circumstantial evidence supporting a finding at [e defendant] knew he was distributing child pornography in exchange for more of e same. The sentence was vacated and remanded for e district court to determine wheer e Government has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of e evidence at [e defendant] knowingly used LimeWire in e kind of exchange contemplated by 2G2.2(b)(3)(B).
5 5 Sentencing Partners May 2016 United States v. Bernado 2016 WL (9 Cir. 2016) Strapping person inside vehicle dashboard warranted enhancement under 2L1.1(b)(6) While e defendant was waiting in line at e San Ysidro Port of Entry, a dog alerted to his Ford Windstar van. An officer conducted an inspection of e vehicle and found a woman hidden in a compartment behind e dashboard. A heavy-duty cargo strap around e midsection of e woman s body strapped her in and held her up in e compartment. After getting out of e van, e woman appeared unharmed. Upon questioning, she told e officer at she was a citizen of Mexico and at e defendant had agreed to smuggle her into e United States illegally. The defendant pled guilty to bringing an unlawful alien into e United States and aiding and abetting an offense against e United States. The PSR recommended an offense level of 18, under 2L1.1(b)(6), stating at e offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of dea or serious bodily injury to anoer person. The district court adopted e PSR, en varied downward and sentenced e defendant to 16 mons. On appeal, e defendant claimed at 2L1.1(b)(6) did not apply because strapping e woman in e van in e manner used did not create a substantial risk of dea or serious bodily injury. The Nin Circuit disagreed, finding at strapping e woman in e van amounted to reckless conduct, as set out in Note 5 of e Application Notes. The court noted at it had affirmed a higher sentence where aliens were transported in overcrowded vehicles, where e aliens lacked seats or seatbelts, where transportation was over a more dangerous route, a dangerous manner of driving, an unsafe vehicle, insufficient ventilation, and a risk of injury from moving mechanical parts. While e dashboard compartment did not raise certain specific dangers (such as e risk of being suffocated or cut), it does not undermine any of e district court s findings regarding e risks of transporting a person in e dashboard of a vehicle. Because e offense conduct here meets e criteria of Note 5, we conclude at e district court did not err in determining at e conduct created a substantial risk of dea or serious harm and erefore did not err in applying e six-level enhancement to [e defendant s] base offense level. United States v. Sotso 2016 WL (5 Cir. 2016) Three-level attempt reduction under 2X1.1(b)(1) was warranted The defendant, a convicted felon, was pulled over for a traffic violation. The defendant told e officer at he was on his way home after seeing his moer. The police officer detected e smell of marijuana and e defendant consented to a search of e car, but no narcotics were located. However, e officer discovered twenty-ree boxes (460 rounds) of 7.62 x 39mm ammunition in e trunk of e car. The defendant admitted at he had been paid by someone named Compadre to purchase e ammunition and at it was to be smuggled into Mexico. The defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. Because e defendant possessed e ammunition in connection wi anoer offense, namely, attempted exportation of ammunition wiout an export license, e PSR applied e cross reference in 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), which resulted in a higher offense level under 2X1.1. The defendant argued at he was entitled to a ree-level attempt reduction under 2X1.1(b)(1), which would make e crossreference inapplicable. The district court adopted e PSR and sentenced e defendant to
6 6 Sentencing Partners May mons. On appeal, e defendant argued at e cross-reference did not apply because ere was no evidence at he had completed or was about to complete all acts required to export e ammunition to Mexico, and if e 2X1.1(b)(1) reduction was applied, e crossreference would not apply. The Fif Circuit agreed at ere was no evidence to support e district court s finding at e defendant was on e verge of delivering e ammunition to Compadre. The PSR did not address e timing of e expected delivery or even wheer any delivery had been arranged. The government concedes at [e defendant] bought e ammunition ree days before he was stopped, and points to no evidence at [he] had arranged to meet wi Compadre on e day of his arrest or even at any arrangements whatsoever had been made for delivering e ammunition. Furer, ere was no evidence in e record as to when e defendant planned to deliver e ammunition, nor any evidence disputing his statement at he was on his way home from his moer s house. The court also disagreed wi e government s argument at purchasing e ammunition was e most significant step in exporting it and e only remaining step was to give it to Compadre. Here, all e defendant had done was buy ammunition and put it in his car. Applying our precedent, on is record [e defendant] was entitled to e ree-level reduction under 2X1.1(b)(1). After e ree-level reduction, e offense level under 2X1.1 for attempted exportation of ammunition is not greater an e offense level under 2K2.1 for being a felon in possession of ammunition, and e district court erefore erred in applying e cross reference in 2K2.1(c)(1)(A). The sentence was reversed and remanded. Plea Agreements ( 6B) United States v. Warner 2016 WL (4 Cir. 2016) Government breached plea agreement; breach was material The defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aiding and abetting e eft of a firearm after he and an accomplice broke into 19 motor vehicles and stole a.40 caliber pistol from one. In e plea agreement, e government agreed to advise e district court at e 4-level enhancement under 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (increasing e offense level for use or possession of a firearm in connection wi anoer felony offense) did not apply. The government s agreement was based, at least in part, on its view at a Nor Carolina conviction for breaking and entering a motor vehicle did not constitute a felony offense. The PSR calculated a sentencing range of 51 to 63 mons, but noted at if 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) did not apply, e range would instead be 33 to 41 mons. At sentencing, e government advised e court at it had changed its position and concluded at e enhancement did apply. Noneeless, e government asked e court to honor e plea agreement and not apply e enhancement. The court, however, chose to apply e enhancement and imposed a sentence of 48 mons. On appeal, e defendant argued at e government s stance at sentencing amounted to a breach of e agreement. The Four Circuit reviewed e language of e agreement and found at e substance of e promise at e government made is clear: The government agreed to advise e court of its position at 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) does not apply in is case. Furer, e government s plea agreement obligation was more an simply recommending at e court not impose e
7 7 Sentencing Partners May 2016 enhancement; it had promised to advise e court of its position at e enhancement does not apply. And us, even ough e government did recommend to e district court at it should not apply e enhancement, e government breached its promise to tell e court at e enhancement did not apply. We conclude at e government, alough acting in good fai, breached its undertaking in e plea agreement by stating at e enhancement did apply, we vacate [e defendant s] sentence and remand for resentencing before a different district judge. Probation/Supervised Release (Chapter 7) United States v. Scott 2016 WL (5 Cir. 2016) Special conditions of supervised release vacated The defendant pled guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 235 mons. That sentence was vacated after e defendant filed a 28 U.S.C motion alleging, among oer ings, at he pled guilty because his counsel assured him at e district judge had told a mutual friend at he would get hammered if he went to trial, but at e judge would take it easy on him by sentencing him to only five years if he pled guilty. The defendant again pled guilty, is time to e single count of possessing child pornography. He was sentenced to 108 mons. The district court also imposed a lifetime term of supervised release wi special conditions including absolute bans on (1) having access to any computer at is capable of internet access or (2) having unsupervised contact wi anyone under e age of 18. Reviewing for plain error, e Fif Circuit explained at conditions of supervised release must be reasonably related to one of four statutory factors: (1) e nature and characteristics of e offense and e history and characteristics of e defendant; (2) e need for deterrence of criminal conduct; (3) e need to protect e public from furer crimes of e defendant; and (4) e need to provide e defendant wi vocational training, medical care, or oer correctional treatment. In addition, e condition must be narrowly tailored such at it does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty an is reasonably necessary to fulfill e purposes set for in 3553(a). The court reversed e two conditions, noting at [n]o circuit court of appeals has ever upheld a lifetime ban on using any computer wi internet access. Furer, computer bans must be narrowly tailored eier by scope or by duration because, among oer reasons, e ubiquity and importance of e Internet to e modern world makes an unconditional, lifetime ban unreasonable. We similarly reasoned at association bans, such as e condition prohibiting all unsupervised contact wi minors, must be narrowly tailored to achieve some balance between protecting e defendant s liberty interest and e government s interest in protecting e public. Accordingly, we vacate e district court s impositions of lifetime bans on accessing any computer wi internet capability and having any unsupervised contact wi minors. If e district court decides to impose similar conditions on remand, it may modify em by, among oer ings, reducing eir duration or conditioning computer usage or contact wi minors on court or probation-officer approval.
8 8 Sentencing Partners May 2016 Restitution United States v. Fowler 2016 WL (6 Cir. 2016) Restitution order based on clearly erroneous fact findings The defendant, a physician, and a codefendant, Thoran, were convicted for eir part in a prescription-drug fraud scheme. The defendant wrote fraudulent prescriptions and marketers such as Thoran filled ose fraudulent prescriptions and sold em on e street. The defendant would write e prescriptions and have em filled by a local pharmacy at paid him a kickback. The PSR calculated a loss amount of $1,752,957. The defendant objected, claiming at e evidence showed at only 20% of e prescriptions written were illegitimate. The government responded at e loss amount was a conservative estimate of e value of e medication he billed rough e pharmacy. The district court ordered restitution in e amount of $1,752,957. On appeal, e defendant asserted at e restitution order was erroneous because e testimony supported his position at only 20% of e prescriptions were illegitimate, and at e restitution amount was based on a conspiracy lasting from November 2009 until August 2011, but e government s witness testified at e defendant s participation did not begin until e middle of The Six Circuit agreed wi e defendant on bo arguments. The government s own witness testified at only 20% of e prescriptions e defendant wrote, including ose from marketers patients, were illegitimate. Furer, e government s evidence showed at while e conspiracy started in 2009, e defendant did not join e conspiracy until sometime in Thus, e evidence also indicates at [e defendant] was held responsible for prescriptions written before he became involved in e conspiracy. Based on e record, ese two issues alone lead us to conclude at e district court s restitution order was based on clearly erroneous findings. The evidence supporting e restitution calculation is not sufficiently reliable, so we conclude at e district court abused its discretion. Armed Career Criminal United States v. Linney 2016 WL (4 Cir. 2016) Prior burglary were committed on different occasions for ACCA The defendant and two companions engaged in a crime spree at started wi a pair of burglaries and ended wi a high-speed chase. During e chase, e defendant drove e getaway car and instructed one of his companions to row a 9-mm handgun out of e car window. Upon capture, police found a 9-mm magazine clip in e defendant s pocket. The defendant pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The PSR classified Linney as an armed career criminal under e ACCA, wi a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence, based on ree prior Nor Carolina burglary convictions. The PSR recommended a sentencing range of 188 to 235 mons and e district court imposed a sentence of 235 mons. On appeal, e defendant argued at two of e ree burglaries occurred on e same occasion and us bo could not be used to support e ACCA enhancement. The government responded by contending at, alough e two burglaries occurred on e same night and in close proximity, ey were in fact separate
9 9 Sentencing Partners May 2016 criminal episodes. The Four Circuit relied on five factors to determine wheer predicate ACCA offenses were committed on different occasions: (1) wheer e offenses arose in different geographic locations ; (2) wheer e nature of each offense was substantively different ; (3) wheer each offense involved different victims ; (4) wheer each offense involved different criminal objectives ; and (5) wheer e defendant had e opportunity after committing e first-in-time offense to make a conscious and knowing decision to engage in e next-in-time offense. Furer, e strong presence of any one factor can dispositively segregate an extended criminal episode into a series of separate and distinct episodes. Here, alough e two houses were close in proximity, e evidence showed at ere were two distinct street addresses, which means at ey occurred at different geographic locations. In addition, e burglaries involved two separate victims. Alough e restitution order imposed joint and several liability on e defendant and an accomplice, e indictments and e judgment show at e defendant was charged alone and convicted alone. The district court was wiin bounds to rely on ese documents to find at [e defendant] committed e two burglaries alone. The sentence was affirmed. Reasonableness Review United States v. Fowler 2016 WL (6 Cir. 2016) Sentence of 108 mons was procedurally unreasonable The defendant, a physician, and a codefendant, Thoran, were convicted for eir part in a prescription-drug fraud scheme. The defendant wrote fraudulent prescriptions and marketers such as Thoran filled ose fraudulent prescriptions and sold em on e street. At first, e primary prescribed drug was Oxycontin, but when it was reformulated in a way at discouraged users from snorting or injecting it, e defendant started prescribing Opana, which could still be abused as e earlier version of Oxycontin. The defendant would write e prescriptions and have em filled by a local pharmacy at paid him a kickback. The PSR calculated a loss amount of $1,752,957, and recommended a sentencing range of mons. The defendant objected, claiming at e evidence showed at only 20% of e prescriptions written were illegitimate. The government responded at e loss amount was a conservative estimate of e value of e medication billed rough e pharmacy. At sentencing, e district court attempted to determine a sentence at would be acceptable to everyone and not be appealed. To is end, e court randomly selected 108 mons as a starting point, en ultimately sentenced e defendant to 72 mons. On appeal, e defendant asserted at his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because e district court failed to calculate e guidelines range or make factual findings in imposing his sentence. The Six Circuit explained at [i]f e district court fails to consider e applicable Guidelines range, but instead simply selects what e judge deems an appropriate sentence wiout such required consideration, e sentence may be unreasonable if it does not allow for meaningful appellate review. The district court gave no reason for its selection of 108 mons oer an to apparently prevent e parties from appealing. Because e sentence imposed did not allow for meaningful appellate review, it was vacated as unreasonable.
10 10 Sentencing Partners May 2016 Cases In This Issue United States v. Bernado, 2016 WL (9 Cir. 2016) United States v. Fowler, 2016 WL (6 Cir. 2016) United States v. Henry, 2016 WL (6 Cir. 2016) nd United States v. Jesurum, 2016 WL (2 Cir. 2016) United States v. Linney, 2016 WL (4 Cir. 2016) United States v. Martinez-Romero, 2016 WL (5 Cir. 2016) United States v. Scott, 2016 WL (5 Cir. 2016) United States v. Sotso, 2016 WL (5 Cir. 2016) United States v. Warner, 2016 WL (4 Cir. 2016)
S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys July 2016 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin and
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys September 2017 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C. A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys July 2015 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin and
More informationDEFENSE NEWSLETTER IN THIS ISSUE: SUPREME COURT UPDATE... p.1 11TH CIRCUIT CASE SUMMARIES p.1 TABLE OF CASES IN THIS ISSUE. p.5
IN THIS ISSUE: SUPREME COURT UPDATE... p.1 11TH CIRCUIT CASE SUMMARIES p.1 TABLE OF CASES IN THIS ISSUE. p.5 DEFENSE NEWSLETTER Vol. 14, No. 1 Kaleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender November 2008
More information4B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2014
4B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2014 PART B - CAREER OFFENDERS AND CRIMINAL LIVELIHOOD 4B1.1. Career Offender (a) (b) A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys December 2008 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr WTM-GRS-1
Case: 17-10473 Date Filed: 04/04/2019 Page: 1 of 14 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10473 D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00154-WTM-GRS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
09-3389-cr United States v. Folkes UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2010 (Submitted: September 20, 2010; Decided: September 29, 2010) Docket No. 09-3389-cr UNITED STATES
More informationAll about Booker. By Alan Ellis and James H. Feldman, Jr. 1.
All about Booker By Alan Ellis and James H. Feldman, Jr. 1 www.alanellis.com On January 12, 2005, e Supreme Court announced its muchanticipated opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. --, 125 S.Ct.
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys December 2013 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee
Case: 15-40264 Document: 00513225763 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 No. 15-40264 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAYMOND ESTRADA,
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys April 2011 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin and
More informationUSA v. Luis Felipe Callego
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-11-2010 USA v. Luis Felipe Callego Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-2855 Follow this
More informationAmendment to the Sentencing Guidelines
Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines January 21, 2016 Effective Date August 1, 2016 This document contains unofficial text of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual submitted to Congress, and is provided
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys January 2014 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr KMM-1
Case: 14-14547 Date Filed: 03/16/2016 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-14547 D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20353-KMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TREVON SYKES, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9604 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TREVON SYKES, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE and LUCERO, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, ** District Judge.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 18, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff Appellee, BRANDON
More informationArmed Career Criminal and Career Offender Enhancements. If you can t avoid them, deflect them.
Armed Career Criminal and Career Offender Enhancements If you can t avoid them, deflect them. ACCA - mandatory 15 year sentence: Who does it apply to? Defendant must: be adjudicated guilty under 18 U.S.C.
More informationFederal Sentencing Guidelines FJC Court Web Alan Dorhoffer Deputy Director, Office of Education
Federal Sentencing Guidelines FJC Court Web Alan Dorhoffer Deputy Director, Office of Education Johnson v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) 2 The Armed Career Criminal Act s residual clause is unconstitutionally
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Petitioner, Case No BC v. Honorable David M.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION ERIC VIDEAU, Petitioner, Case No. 01-10353-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson ROBERT KAPTURE, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shelton v. USA Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA MICHAEL J. SHELTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. No.: 1:18-CV-287-CLC MEMORANDUM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number BC v. Honorable David M.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 03-20028-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson DERRICK GIBSON, Defendant. / OPINION
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
17 70 cr United States v. Hoskins In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2017 Argued: January 9, 2018 Decided: September 26, 2018 Docket No. 17 70 cr UNITED STATES OF
More informationCase 1:16-cr KBJ Document 6 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cr-00232-KBJ Document 6 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EDGAR MADDISON WELCH, Case No. 1:16-MJ-847 (GMH)
More informationWhen a State Felony is not A Federal Felony. Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder
When a State Felony is not A Federal Felony Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder Federal Felony Definition, generally: a conviction punishable by a term that exceeds one year imprisonment If the term exceeding
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, No
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, 2006 No. 04-3431 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationI. Potential Challenges Post-Johnson (Other Than Career Offender).
I. Potential Challenges Post-Johnson (Other Than Career Offender). A. Non-ACCA gun cases under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1. U.S.S.G. 2K2.1 imposes various enhancements for one or more prior crimes of violence. According
More informationUSA v. Jack Underwood
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-19-2012 USA v. Jack Underwood Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-4242 Follow this and
More informationCRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE Copyright July State Bar of California
Copyright July 1994 - State Bar of California Jane, a police officer who was not in uniform, attempted to make a lawful arrest of Al for distribution of a controlled substance. Doug, who did not know eier
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-11396 Document: 00512881175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Summary Calendar Plaintiff-Appellee United States
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-22-2016 USA v. Marcus Pough Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Joseph Eddy Benoit appeals the district court s amended judgment sentencing
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellee, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
More informationCase 3:13-cr KI Document 51 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 141
Case 3:13-cr-00271-KI Document 51 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 141 S. AMANDA MARSHALL, OSB #95347 United States Attorney District of Oregon JANE SHOEMAKER Assistant United States Attorney Jane.Shoemaker@usdoj.gov
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-19-2006 USA v. Beckford Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2183 Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 19a0059p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CARLOS CLIFFORD LOWE, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEREINO
More informationOverview of Federal Criminal Cases Fiscal Year 2014
Overview of Federal Criminal Cases Fiscal Year 2014 UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION United States Sentencing Commission One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 www.ussc.gov Patti B. Saris Chair
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN CRIE. Submitted: July 21, 2006 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2006
Modified 1/11/07 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLEE
Case: 13-10650, 08/17/2015, ID: 9649625, DktEntry: 42, Page 1 of 19 No. 13-10650 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERRIELL ELLIOTT TALMORE, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationPOST-PADILLA ISSUES. Two-Part Test: Strickland
POST-PADILLA ISSUES Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant whether a citizen or not is left to the mercies of incompetent
More informationORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Salas, Jr. was charged in a two-count
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 21, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 THOMAS P. O BRIEN United States Attorney CHRISTINE C. EWELL Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division CHRISTOPHER BRUNWIN Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Chief, Violent
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Case No. 12-06001-01/19-CR-SJ-GAF ) RAFAEL HERNANDEZ-ORTIZ, ) )
More informationNo. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. October Term 2013
No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term 2013 DANIEL RAUL ESPINOZA, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-24-2008 USA v. Lister Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1476 Follow this and additional
More information2016 PA Super 91. OPINION BY OTT, J.: Filed: April 28, Anthony Stilo appeals from the July 23, 2014, judgment of sentence
2016 PA Super 91 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY STILO Appellant No. 2838 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 23, 2014 In the Court of Common
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-20361 Document: 00511376732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 9, 2011 No.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 06a0116p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CARSON BEASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 2898 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, ANTWON JENKINS, v. Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More information5B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2015
5B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2015 PART B - PROBATION Introductory Commentary The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 makes probation a sentence in and of itself. 18 U.S.C. 3561. Probation may
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 10, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 10, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES THOMAS LARD, II and DOREEN REBECA GATES LARD Appeal from e Circuit Court for Tipton
More informationTHE ABC S OF CO AND ACCA FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER CJA PANEL SEMINAR DECEMBER 15, 2017
THE ABC S OF CO AND ACCA FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER CJA PANEL SEMINAR DECEMBER 15, 2017 https://youtu.be/d8cb5wk2t-8 CAREER OFFENDER. WE WILL DISCUSS GENERAL APPLICATION ( 4B1.1) CRIME OF VIOLENCE ( 4B1.2(a))
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
US v. Arthur Simmons Doc. 0 Case: 09-4534 Document: 49 Date Filed: 03/17/2011 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4534 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff
More informationMens Rea Defect Overturns 15 Year Enhancement
Mens Rea Defect Overturns 15 Year Enhancement Felony Urination with Intent Three Strikes Yer Out Darryl Jones came to Spokane, Washington in Spring, 1991 to help a friend move. A police officer observed
More information(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
18 U.S.C. 3553 : Imposition of a sentence (a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence. - The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes
More informationPART H - SPECIFIC OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS. Introductory Commentary
5H1.1 PART H - SPECIFIC OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS Introductory Commentary The following policy statements address the relevance of certain offender characteristics to the determination of whether a sentence
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-12-2003 USA v. Valletto Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-1933 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr JDW-AEP-1.
Case: 16-16403 Date Filed: 06/23/2017 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-16403 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr-00171-JDW-AEP-1
More informationF I L E D June 28, 2011
USA v. Joshua Calhoun Case: 10-40278 Document: 00511523774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2011 Doc. 511523774 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth
More informationMISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2018
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2018 By: Representatives Holloway, Sykes To: Drug Policy HOUSE BILL NO. 139 1 AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 41-29-139, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, 2 TO PROVIDE THAT A 1ST
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-21-2014 USA v. Robert Cooper Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 09-2159 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr EAK-MAP-1.
USA v. Iseal Dixon Doc. 11010182652 Case: 17-12946 Date Filed: 07/06/2018 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-12946 Non-Argument Calendar
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-26-2008 USA v. Bonner Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3763 Follow this and additional
More informationMANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
An Overview of MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES in the FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM United States Sentencing Commission July 2017 Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE-KJM Document 32 Filed 08/26/2009 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-0-MCE-KJM Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Alan Gura (Calif. Bar No. ) Gura & Possessky, PLLC 0 N. Columbus St., Suite 0 Alexandria, VA 0..0/Fax 0.. Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr. (Calif. Bar No. )
More informationCRIMES CODE (18 PA.C.S.) AND JUDICIAL CODE (42 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Nov. 29, 2006, P.L. 1567, No. 178 Cl. 18
CRIMES CODE (18 PA.C.S.) AND JUDICIAL CODE (42 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Nov. 29, 2006, P.L. 1567, No. 178 Cl. 18 Session of 2006 No. 2006-178 SB 944 AN ACT Amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
More informationUSDC SDNY Case 1:17-cr VEC Document 37 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 6 X : : : : : : : : X. Defendant.
USDC SDNY Case 117-cr-00370-VEC Document 37 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT MICHAEL HARRY, Defendant. No. CR17-1017-LTS SENTENCING OPINION AND
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-4-2014 USA v. Kevin Abbott Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 13-2216 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr TWT-AJB-6. versus
USA v. Catarino Moreno Doc. 1107415071 Case: 12-15621 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-15621 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00251-TWT-AJB-6
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-11078 Document: 00513840322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals
More informationOVERVIEW OF IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF STATE COURT CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. October 11, 2013
OVERVIEW OF IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF STATE COURT CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS October 11, 2013 By: Center for Public Policy Studies, Immigration and State Courts Strategic Initiative and National Immigrant
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 10, 2012 v No. 301668 Wayne Circuit Court KARON CORTEZ CRENSHAW, LC No. 09-023757-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Trevon Sykes - Petitioner. vs. United State of America - Respondent.
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2017 Trevon Sykes - Petitioner vs. United State of America - Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Levell D. Littleton Attorney for Petitioner 1221
More informationWhen Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements
When Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements Alan DuBois Senior Appellate Attorney Federal Public Defender-Eastern District of North
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session RALPH ALLEY, ET AL., v. QUEBECOR WORLD KINGSPORT, INC., d/n/a QUEBECOR WORLD HAWKINS, INC. Direct Appeal from e Circuit Court for Hawkins
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 22, 2017 Session
05/24/2017 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 22, 2017 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GREGORY T. PHELPS Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 104306A G. Scott
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-16-2007 USA v. Wilson Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2511 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 5 July 2016
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More information1 Thanks to Benji McMurray for his contributions to this paper.
After Irizarry: (1) Due Process Requires Notice and Adversarial Testing of Aggravating Facts (2) Object and Seek a Continuance if Surprised By Aggravating Facts (3) Argue that the Reason is a Departure
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 27, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 27, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID CLINTON YORK Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Clay County No. 4028 Lillie
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,787 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, COY RAY CARTMELL, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,787 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. COY RAY CARTMELL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2019. Affirmed. Appeal from Butler
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-3-2016 USA v. Jean Joseph Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4368 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY DARBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-31-2014 USA v. Carlo Castro Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-1942 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
McPhail v. LYFT, INC. Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JENNIFER MCPHAIL A-14-CA-829-LY LYFT, INC. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case: 14-6294 Document: 22 Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 1 No. 14-6294 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, ANTHONY GRAYER, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUSA v. Columna-Romero
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-30-2008 USA v. Columna-Romero Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4279 Follow this and
More informationSENTENCING IN SUPERIOR COURT. Jamie Markham (919) STEPS FOR SENTENCING A FELONY UNDER STRUCTURED SENTENCING
SENTENCING IN SUPERIOR COURT Jamie Markham markham@sog.unc.edu (919) 843 3914 STEPS FOR SENTENCING A FELONY UNDER STRUCTURED SENTENCING 1. Determine the applicable law 2. Determine the offense class 3.
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff - Appellee, No (D.C. No. 5:14-CR M-1) v. W.D. Oklahoma STEPHEN D. HUCKEBA, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 25, 2015 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, No.
More informationUSA v. David McCloskey
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-8-2015 USA v. David McCloskey Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14-2458 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW POULIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 28, 2016 v No. 325970 Oakland Circuit Court DESHON MARCEL SESSION, LC No. 2014-250037-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION K. A. F., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent, ORDER ON WIFE S MOTION TO COMPEL
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-895 In the Supreme Court of the United States JUSTUS CORNELIUS ROSEMOND, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationFamilies Against Mandatory Minimums 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C
Families Against Mandatory Minimums 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 202-822-6700 www.famm.org Summary of The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005 Title I Criminal
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-00363-MHS-DDB Document 16 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 441 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RA INVESTMENT I, LLC, ET AL. vs. Case No. 4:05CV363
More informationSentencing 101 A beginner s guide to sentencing in Federal Courts. March 23, 2016 Michelle Nahon Moulder, Assistant Federal Public Defender
Sentencing 101 A beginner s guide to sentencing in Federal Courts. March 23, 2016 Michelle Nahon Moulder, Assistant Federal Public Defender Purpose of this presentation: The basics. What you can expect:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION. vs. CASE NO. 5:01cr22-RH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. 5:01cr22-RH WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Defendant. / DEFENDANT S SENTENCING
More information