UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
- Conrad Carpenter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiffs CRIMINAL DOCKET CR BRIAN DUNN V. HON. RICHARD P. CONABOY Defendant SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF BRIAN DUNN Through counsel, Brian Dunn files the following Sentencing Memorandum setting forth all factors that the Court should consider in determining what type and length of sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the statutory directives set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Brian Dunn, upon contact from and meeting with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on March 25, 2009, immediately took responsibility for his conduct, and immediately indicated his desire to dispose of this matter in as early and as expeditious a fashion possible. Mr. Dunn immediately agreed to cooperate in the investigation of his own conduct. His behavior, serious in nature, is likewise aberrant from an otherwise respected figure in the community. It is with great remorse for his conduct, and with great respect, that Brian Dunn submits this sentencing memorandum. Initially, this sentencing memorandum will address the underlying law this Court may consider in fashioning a sentence. Thereafter, this memorandum will discuss the specific factors
2 and characteristics concerning Brian Dunn and this case that, it is respectfully submitted, this Court may consider. Sentencing under Booker On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that its Sixth Amendment holding in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) applies to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). Given the mandatory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Court found no relevant distinction between the sentence imposed pursuant to the Washington statutes in Blakely and the sentences imposed pursuant to the Federal Sentencing in the cases before the Court. Id. at 751. Accordingly, reaffirming its holding in Apprendi, the Court concluded that Id. at 756. [a]y fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on this conclusion, the Court further found those provisions of the federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 that make the Guidelines mandatory, 18 U.S.C. 3553(b)(1) or which rely upon the Guidelines mandatory nature, 18 U.S.C. 3742(e), incompatible with its Sixth Amendment holding. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. Accordingly, the Court severed and excised those provisions, making the Guidelines effectively advisory. Id. at 757. Instead of being bound by the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Reform Act, as revised by Booker, requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, see 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a)(4) (Supp.2004), but it permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well, see 3 553(a). 2
3 Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757. Thus, under Booker, sentencing courts must treat the guidelines as just one of a number of sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The primary directive in Section 3553(a) is for sentencing courts to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph 2. Section 3553(a)(2) states that such purposes are: (A) (B) (C) (D) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. In determining the minimally sufficient sentence, 3553(a) further directs sentencing courts to consider the following factors: 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant ( 3553(a)(1); 2) the kinds of sentences available ( 3553(a)(3); 3) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct ( 3553(a)(6); and 4) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. ( 3553(a)(7). Other statutory sections also give this Court direction in sentencing. Under 18 U.S.C. 3582, imposition of a term of imprisonment is subject to the following limitation: in determining whether and to what extent imprisonment is appropriate based on the Section 3553(a) factors, the judge is required to recognize that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation (emphasis added). Under 18 U.S.C. 3661, no limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of the defendant which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence (emphasis added). This statutory language certainly overrides the (now-advisory) policy statements in Part H of the
4 sentencing guidelines, which list as not ordinarily relevant to sentencing a variety of factors such as the defendant s age, educational and vocational skills, mental and emotional conditions, drug or alcohol dependence, and lack of guidance as a youth. See U.S.S.G. 5H1. The directives of Booker and 3553(a) make clear that courts may no longer uncritically apply the guidelines. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the holdings of the merits majority in Booker, rejecting mandatory guideline sentences based on judicial fact-finding, and the remedial majority in Booker, directing courts to consider all of the 3353(a) factors, many of which the guidelines either reject or ignore. Justice Scalia explains the point well in his dissent from Booker s remedial holding: Thus, logic compels the conclusion that the sentencing judge, after considering the recited factors (including the guidelines), has full discretion, as full as what he possessed before the Act was passed, to sentence anywhere within the statutory range. If the majority thought otherwise, if it thought the Guidelines not only had to be "considered" (as the amputated statute requires) but had generally to be followed its opinion would surely say so. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 791 (Scalia, J., dissenting in part). Likewise, if the remedial majority thought the guidelines had to be given heavy weight, its opinion would have said so. The remedial majority clearly understood that giving any special weight to the guideline range relative to the other Section 3553(a) factors would violate the Sixth Amendment. In sum, in every case, a sentencing court must now consider all of the 3553(a) factors, not just the guidelines, in determining a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing. And where the guidelines conflict with other sentencing factors set forth in 3553(a), these statutory sentencing factors should generally trump the guidelines. See United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269, (3d Cir. 1989) (Becker, J, concurring in part, dissenting in part) (arguing that since (a) requires sentence be no greater than necessary to 4
5 meet four purposes of sentencing, imposition of sentence greater than necessary to meet those purposes violates statute and is reversible, even if within guideline range). Additionally, Bran Dunn urges this Court to consider other departures within the sentencing guidelines, including the consideration of a departure for the early disposition of this case and a consideration of the aberrant nature of his behavior, as well as any other factors pursuant to 5K2.0. The "Early Disposition" of this matter subject to USSG 5K3.1 Brian Dunn was contacted by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on March 25, Immediately following that contact and meeting with the agents, Dunn, through his family, contacted the undersigned. On March 26, 2009, the undersigned met with Brian Dunn. On March 27, 2009, the undersigned telephoned Assistant United States Attorney William Howser to discuss Brian Dunn coming to Scranton to meet with the AUSA and FBI agents. On March 30, 2009 Mr. Dunn and the undersigned met with AUSA Howser and the FBI. Mr. Dunn immediately agreed to cooperate in the investigation of his wrong doing. At the time of the March 30, 2009 meeting with the AUSA and FBI, the AUSA made clear the then-current scope of the investigation, and that the government was looking into potential gratuities received by Mr. Dunn in connection with teaching jobs in the Wilkes Bane Area School District. Mr. Dunn immediately acknowledged his role in the securing of two teaching positions, and the receipt of money for assistance in securing those jobs. During the course of this meeting, further discussions were held concerning a plea to a one count Information. Ultimately, that Information was filed on filed on October 26,
6 There can be no doubt, however, that from the initial meeting on March 30, 2009 it was Mr. Dunn s intention to acknowledge responsibility for his conduct, accept the criminal information, and plead guilty. Such conduct is the essence of early disposition. 1 It is respectfully requested that this Court acknowledge Mr. Dunn s early disposition of this matter, beyond that which is recognized in 3E1.1(a) and (b), and fashion a further departure beyond the three levels for acceptance of responsibility that have been agreed to both by Mr. Dunn, the government, and the U.S. Probation Office in the Pre Sentence Investigation report. 5K Aberrant Behavior and other 5K2.0 factors Brian Dunn acknowledges that there is no excuse for his actions. The acceptance of gratuities while a member of the school board of the Wilkes Barre Area School District in return for teaching positions represents an abuse of the trust of the citizens of Luzerne County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. His actions also reflect the reach of a corrupt local government scheme; one that has clearly impacted the citizens of Luzerne County, and, with the ongoing government investigation and prosecution, one that hopefully will now terminate. The culture that existed, and may still exist today in Luzerne County, is not one which may, or should be, countenanced. Brian Dunn is a life long resident of Luzerne County, specifically in Wilkes Barre. He graduated from Coughlin High School in He had steady employment with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue for nearly 20 years. Prior to his job with the Department of Revenue, Mr. Dunn was employed for five years by the Commonwealth 1 It is fully understood by Mr. Dunn and the undersigned that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania does not have an "early disposition program" as described in section 5K3,1 of the sentencing guidelines. It is also fully understood that several of the Circuit Courts of Appeal have ruled that the lack of an early disposition program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause for those defendants within those districts that do not have such a program. Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals would follow the other circuits, or would rule differently, is not of consequence here at the moment. The issue raised here is that were an early disposition program available, Brian Dunn would clearly be an eligible participant
7 of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a mail inspector. His stable work history is evidence of his commitment to himself, his family, and his community. As a result of his plea agreement in this matter, he resigned from his position with the Commonwealth Department of Revenue. Throughout his 46 years, Mr. Dunn has run afoul of the law one time, that for driving under the influence in The Pre Sentence Investigation report, at paragraph 46, references Mr. Dunn s extensive alcohol abuse. His alcohol consumption was significant, and lead to serious issues at home. Ultimately, his marriage ended in divorce. Following the notification by the FBI in late March 2009 of his pending arrest, Mr. Dunn, with the support and encouragement of his family, his friends, and the government attorneys, agents and pre-trial services personnel, has successfully completed an alcohol rehabilitation program. As essentially a "hanger-on" with the likes of political movers and shakers, judges and lawyers in Luzerne County, Brian Dunn found himself in a position of power with the Wilkes Barre Area School Board. It has become clear that the "pay to play" culture had existed well before Brian Dunn was elected to the Wilkes Barre Area School District, in both the school district itself and within Luzerne County. The essence of the government s case against Mr. Dunn and others in Luzerne County is that gratuities were the way business was done. To become a part of the problem rather than the solution is not correct. However, Brian Dunn is remorseful for his conduct, and is fully aware of the damage he has done to his family and his community. He is a person with an otherwise an otherwise law abiding life, with support from family and friends. The behavior evidenced by Brian Dunn in accepting gratuities is wrong, is not excusable, but is indeed aberrant. It is respectfully submitted that this Court has the 7
8 authority to recognize Mr. Dunn s otherwise positive contributions to his family, his employers, and his community and fashion a further departure. Application of the Statutory Sentencing Factors to the Facts of this Case In the present case, the following factors must be considered when determining what type and length of sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing: 1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics of the Offender (a) Nature and Circumstances of Offense This matter involves a violation of 18 U.S.C In the criminal complaint, the Government alleged, and Mr. Dunn immediately agreed, that, as a member of the Wilkes Bane Area School District school board, he had received gratuities in return for securing certain teaching positions in the school district. (b) History and Characteristics of Mr. Dunn The Pre Sentence Investigation report prepared by the United States Probation Office details Mr. Dunn s history and background. There is no objection to the contents of that report as it relates to Mr. Dunn s background and character. Additionally, as described above, Mr. Dunn took immediate responsibility for his actions and took immediate steps to dispose of this matter in a timely, early and expeditious fashion.
9 2. The Need for the Sentence Imposed To Promote Certain Statutory Objectives: (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense This Court has broad discretion to impose a sentence to reflect the above objectives. In so doing, should likewise consider the government s Motion for Downward Departure for substantial assistance. (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct Mr. Dunn is fully remorseful for his conduct. The instant offense violates the public trust in elected officials. Mr. Dunn is fully cognizant of that violation of trust, and is regretful for his actions. (C) to protect the publicfrom further crimes of the defendant Mr. Dunn is not a danger to commit future crimes. (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner Mr. Dunn was successfully and consistently employed for nearly 30 years before the instant offense. He is fully physically able to maintain gainful employment. He will obtain full time employment upon his release from any custodial sentence. He has completed an alcohol rehabilitation and treatment program for his alcohol dependency. 3. The Kinds of Sentences Available In Booker, the Supreme Court severed and excised 18 U.S.C. 3553(b), the portion of the federal sentencing statute that made it mandatory for courts to sentence within a particular sentencing guidelines range. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. This renders the sentencing guidelines advisory. Id. 9
10 Mr. Dunn is eligible to receive a sentence that may include a period of imprisonment followed by supervised release; home confinement; probation; a fine and special assessment. There are no mandatory minimum sentences applicable. 4. The Sentencing Range Established by the Sentencing Commission The appropriate guideline range is reflected in the Pre Sentence Report prepared by the United States Probation Office. The government has filed a Motion for Downward Departure. 5. The Need To Avoid Unwarranted Disparities Multiple defendants have pled guilty and have been sentenced as a result of their participation in the course of conduct investigated by the government in this matter. The sentences have ranged from probation to a custodial sentence of 13 months. 6. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense At paragraph 17 of the Pre Sentence Investigation report, the U.S. Probation Office states there is no identifiable victim of the offense. At paragraph 70, the Pre Sentence report states that restitution is not an issue in this matter. 10
11 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Brian Dunn respectfully submits that a sentence of home confinement and supervised release is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the statutory directives set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Respectfully submitted, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Date: September 24, 2010 s/scott F. Griffith, Esquire Scott F. Griffith, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Brian Dunn The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA (215)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants,
No. 13-10026 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, v. United States, Respondent- Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-11-2006 USA v. Severino Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 05-3695 Follow this and additional
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 informationUSA v. William Hoffa, Jr.
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-2-2009 USA v. William Hoffa, Jr. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-3920 Follow this and
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-14-2006 USA v. Marshall Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2549 Follow this and additional
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 1:08-cr-00523-PAB Document 45 Filed 10/13/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 AO 245B (Rev. 09/08) Judgment in a Criminal Case Sheet 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. District of
More informationCOUNSEL: [*1] For Plaintiff or Petitioner: Richard Lloret/Kathy Stark, U.S. Attorney's Office, Phila., PA.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FREDERICK LEACH CRIMINAL NO. 02-172-14 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13291 July 13, 2004, Decided COUNSEL: [*1]
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 informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-4-2006 USA v. Rivera Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-5329 Follow this and additional
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 05-3865 United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal From the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Michael
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
6:14-cr-00020-JHP Document 121 Filed in ED/OK on 04/25/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION GOVERNMENT S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS DONKERSLOOT, Defendant. No. 09-00296-06-CR-W-FJG GOVERNMENT S
More informationCase: 1:12-cr Document #: 133 Filed: 09/11/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:733
Case: 1:12-cr-00658 Document #: 133 Filed: 09/11/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:733 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs.
More informationPRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1 SHEREEN J. CHARLICK California State Bar No. 1 FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC. Broadway, Suite 00 San Diego, California 1-00 Telephone: (1 - Attorneys for Mr. Garcia-Renteria 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
More informationCase 1:09-mj JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLEA AGREEMENT
Case 1:09-mj-00015-JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) V. ) ) DWAYNE F. CROSS, ) ) Defendant. ) Case
More informationUSA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-1-2011 USA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2394 Follow this and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CR-J-33-MCR.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-12642 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 07-00097-CR-J-33-MCR FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-20-2017 USA v. Shamar Banks Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017
More informationCase 2:16-cr DGC Document 121 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cr-0-dgc Document Filed /0/ Page of Kurt M. Altman Arizona Bar Number 00 Attorney at Law East Cactus Road, Suite 0-0 Scottsdale, Arizona attorneykaltman@yahoo.com Phone: (0) -00 Fax: (0) - Attorney
More informationCase 1:10-cr JFK Document 31 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 12 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 1:10-cr-00813-JFK Document 31 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X UNITED STATES OF
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 informationMassachusetts Sentencing Commission Current Statutes Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211E 1-4 (2018)
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission Current Statutes Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211E 1-4 (2018) DISCLAIMER: This document is a Robina Institute transcription of statutory contents. It is not an authoritative
More informationCase 1:18-cr ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : : : : : : :
Case 118-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. W. SAMUEL PATTEN, Defendant. Criminal No. 18-260 (ABJ)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr JEM-1.
Case: 14-13029 Date Filed: 07/15/2015 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-13029 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20064-JEM-1
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cr-00272-EMK Document 264 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) No.: 09-CR-272-02 v. ) Judge Edwin
More informationOn March 27, 2008, Scott Shields ("Shields" or. pleaded guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Fraudulently Obtain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - against - SCOTT SHIELDS, Defendant 07 Cr. 320-01 (RWS) SENTENCING OPINION Sweet, D. J On March 27, 2008, Scott Shields
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 informationA male female. JOURNAL ENTRY OF ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCING Pursuant to K.S.A , and
Form 342 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COUNTY, KANSAS JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF:, juvenile Case No. Year of Birth: A male female JOURNAL ENTRY OF ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCING Pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2355,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal Number: v. : VIOLATION: Count One: JAMES STEVEN GRILES, : 18 U.S.C. 1505 (Obstruction of Proceedings Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 18, 2007 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, TIMOTHY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) CR. NO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. CR. NO. 89-1234, Defendant. MOTION TO AMEND 28 U.S.C. 2255 MOTION Defendant, through undersigned counsel,
More informationSO WHAT S THE DIFFERENCE ANYWAY? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VARIANCES AND DEPARTURES
SO WHAT S THE DIFFERENCE ANYWAY? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VARIANCES AND DEPARTURES CJA Panel Training December 15, 2017 Jackson, MS Abby Brumley, Assistant Federal Defender U.S. V. BOOKER, 135 S. CT. 738
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-10-2013 USA v. John Purcell Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1982 Follow this and additional
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-3-2006 USA v. King Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1839 Follow this and additional
More informationCAUSE NUMBER 00 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY CRIMINAL V. COURT AT LAW NUMBER 00 DEFENDANT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 00 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY CRIMINAL V. COURT AT LAW NUMBER 00 DEFENDANT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MEMBERS OF THE JURY: You have found the Defendant, name, guilty of the offense of driving
More informationCase 3:17-cr RBL Document 8 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 10 FILED. LDOOED,RECEIVED JUL
Case 3:17-cr-05226-RBL Document 8 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILED. LDOOED,RECEIVED JUL 06 2017 CLERY. U.S. DfST~ICT COURT WESTERN
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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case 3:19-cr-00121-GAG Document 65 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL NO. 19-121 (GAG-MEL) Plaintiff v. ISADORA
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. 3 09-CR-385 vs. (JUDGE CONABOY) MICHAEL T. TOOLE UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF SENTENCING HEARING AND NOW comes the Defendant,, by and through his counsel, Frank W. Nocito,
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 informationINTRODUCTION TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES Where to find the Guidelines ONLINE at www.ussc.gov/guidelines In print from Westlaw Chapter Organization Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Offense Conduct Chapter
More informationCase: 3:16-cr Document #: 13 Filed: 06/30/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:132 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 3:16-cr-50015 Document #: 13 Filed: 06/30/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:132 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:16-cr-50015
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CR-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM CASE NO CR-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM
Case 1:90-cr-00260-WJZ Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2012 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 89-602-CR-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM CASE NO. 90-260-CR-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM
More informationWRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION BEFORE THE ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION BEFORE THE ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION Hearing on Consideration of Antitrust Criminal Remedies November 3, 2005 Madam Chair, Commissioners,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, : CASE NO. 2:15-CR-280. v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Plaintiff, : CASE NO. 2:15-CR-280 v. : JUDGE MARBLEY MATTHEW L. DAILEY, : Defendant. : SENTENCING
More informationCase 2:13-cr CLS-HGD Document 6 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 18 AMENDED PLEA AGREEMENT. The Government and defendant, RUTH GAYLE CUNNINGHAM hereby
Case 2:13-cr-00171-CLS-HGD Document 6 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 18 FILED 2013 Aug-02 AM 10:20 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA lub ~1Jf' -2 ANcl:l:fij UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 1.0 FeJRurftE NORTHERN
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD IRIZARRY, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 06-7517 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD IRIZARRY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Docket No. YY-CR-YYY Plaintiff, ) District Judge ZZZZZZ ) v. ) 18 U.S.C. 3661 ) Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i) XXX
More informationIn the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 13-10026 Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball, Petitioners, v. United States, Respondent. On Appeal from the Appellate Court of the District of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee; ) ) Crim. No. 02-484-02 (TFH) v. ) (Appeal No. 03-3126) ) Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx ) ) Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) No CR-W-FIG Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ) MARY LYNN ROSTIE, ) ) Defendant. )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) No. 08-00026-01-CR-W-FIG Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ) MARY LYNN ROSTIE, ) ) Defendant.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-30-2013 USA v. Mark Allen Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-1399 Follow this and additional
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:
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-28-2015 USA v. John Phillips Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115807
Filed 10/19/07 P. v. Hosington CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-30-2011 USA v. Calvin Moore Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1454 Follow this and additional
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Appellate Case: 13-1466 Document: 01019479219 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 Page: 1 No. 13-1466 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, RANDY
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Bill Smith, Esquire Attorney for John Doe. Meredith Patti, Esquire Mary Cate Rush, Chief Statistician. DATE: August 5, 2014
M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM : Bill Smith, Esquire Attorney for John Doe Meredith Patti, Esquire Mary Cate Rush, Chief Statistician DATE: SUBJECT: DOE - DATA ANALYSIS Title 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6) directs
More informationCase 0:09-cr JMR-SRN Document 75 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 10. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No.
Case 0:09-cr-00292-JMR-SRN Document 75 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No. 09-292 (JMR/SRN) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) GOVERNMENT S SENTENCING )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF. Defendant. :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : v. : JOHN DOE, : Docket No. Defendant. : DEFENDANT=S SUPPLEMENTAL SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING ISSUES RAISED BY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT VS. : APPEAL NUMBER
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Appellant, VS. : APPEAL NUMBER 05-4833 MARC RICKS : Appellee. Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Under
More informationcase 3:04-cr AS document 162 filed 09/01/2005 page 1 of 6
case 3:04-cr-00071-AS document 162 filed 09/01/2005 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Cause No. 3:04-CR-71(AS)
More informationPART C IMPRISONMENT. If the applicable guideline range is in Zone B of the Sentencing Table, the minimum term may be satisfied by
5C1.1 PART C IMPRISONMENT 5C1.1. Imposition of a Term of Imprisonment (a) A sentence conforms with the guidelines for imprisonment if it is within the minimum and maximum terms of the applicable guideline
More informationCase 2:15-cr FMO Document 52 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:295
Case :-cr-00-fmo Document Filed 0 Page of Page ID #: EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division RITESH SRIVASTAVA (Cal. Bar
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0313p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DENNIS J. PRESTO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 549 U. S. (2007) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 05 6551 JOHN CUNNINGHAM, PETITIONER v. CALIFORNIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. vs. CASE NO. xxxxx SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CASE NO. xxxxx RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant. / SENTENCING MEMORANDUM The defendant, Rafael
More informationThe Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing Anna C. Henning Legislative Attorney June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for
More informationBrief: Petition for Rehearing
Brief: Petition for Rehearing Blakely Issue(s): Denial of Jury Trial on (1) Aggravating Factors Used to Imposed Upper Term (Non-Recidivist Aggravating Factors only); (2) facts used to impose consecutive
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, WENDY HUFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 110,750 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WENDY HUFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. According to the United States Supreme Court, with the exception
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Sentence Vacated; Case Remanded for Resentencing.
[Cite as State v. McLaughlin, 2006-Ohio-7084.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. KENYON MCLAUGHLIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CASE
More informationUSA v. Adriano Sotomayer
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-7-2014 USA v. Adriano Sotomayer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-3554 Follow this and
More informationP art One of this two-part article explained how the
Fotosearch.com Federal Sentencing Under The Advisory Guidelines: A Primer for the Occasional Federal Practitioner Part Two Sentencing Discretion After Booker, Gall, and Kimbrough P art One of this two-part
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN PINNOW Special Assistant to State Public Defender Greenwood, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana KELLY A. MIKLOS Deputy
More informationREASONS FOR SEEKING CLEMENCY 1
REASONS FOR SEEKING CLEMENCY 1 In 1998, a Waverly, Virginia police officer, Allen Gibson, was murdered during a drug deal gone wrong. After some urging by his defense attorney and the State s threats to
More information2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14984, * DARBERTO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 04-CV-0465
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14984, * DARBERTO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 04-CV-0465 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
1 1 1 MICHAEL D. KIMERER, #00 AMY L. NGUYEN, #0 Kimerer & Derrick, P.C. East Indianola Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 01 Telephone: 0/-00 Facsimile: 0/- Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
More informationCase 1:17-cr KMW Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2018 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:17-cr-20747-KMW Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2018 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 17-CR-20747-KMW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARCELO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. WAYNE BOUYEA, : : Petitioner : : v. : CIVIL NO. 3:CV : MEMORANDUM
Bouyea v. Baltazar Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAYNE BOUYEA, : : Petitioner : : v. : CIVIL NO. 3:CV-14-2388 : JUAN BALTAZAR, : (Judge Kosik) : Respondent
More informationFlLED RECEIVED. Case 2:09-cr ROS Document 152 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 8 ~LODGED COPY NOV Ct.ERK US DISTRICT COURT DISTR CT OF A.
Case 2:09-cr-00717-ROS Document 152 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 8 1 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona 2 Howard D. Sukenic 3 Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 011990 Two
More informationCase: 5:14-cr JRA Doc #: 83 Filed: 02/07/15 1 of 5. PageID #: 611
Case: 5:14-cr-00096-JRA Doc #: 83 Filed: 02/07/15 1 of 5. PageID #: 611 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, vs. CASE
More informationUSA v. Gerrett Conover
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-12-2016 USA v. Gerrett Conover Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More information42 Pa.C.S. 9729, 9763, 9773 and Chapter 98.
303.12 Guideline sentence recommendations: Sentencing programs. Pennsylvania Statutes 42 Pa.C.S. JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE Part VIII CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Chapter 97 SENTENCING Subchapter C SENTENCING
More informationHow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work: An Abridged Overview
How the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work: An Abridged Overview Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law July 2, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41697 Summary Sentencing
More informationUSA v. Jose Rodriguez
2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-1-2017 USA v. Jose Rodriguez Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017
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 informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION Rule 3:21-1. Withdrawal of Plea A motion to withdraw a plea
More informationGlossary of Criminal Justice Sentencing Terms
Please see the Commission s Sentencing Guidelines Implementation Manual for additional detailed information. Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences When more than one sentence is imposed, or when a sentence
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Fernandez, 2014-Ohio-3651.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 13CA0054-M v. MARK A. FERNANDEZ Appellant
More informationUSA v. Kheirallah Ahmad
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-28-2009 USA v. Kheirallah Ahmad Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1374 Follow this and
More informationCase 3:01-cr JBA Document 288 Filed 09/22/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:01-cr-00263-JBA Document 288 Filed 09/22/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case No. 01-cr-263 (JBA) : v. : : JOSEPH P. GANIM : September
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 informationvs. : CR : FREDERICK POPOWICH, : Post-Sentence Motion Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant s Post-Sentence Motion.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : No s. CR-331-2011 vs. : CR-463-2011 : FREDERICK POPOWICH, : Post-Sentence Motion Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court
More information2016 PA Super 276. OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: Filed: December 6, The Commonwealth appeals from the October 9, 2015 Order denying
2016 PA Super 276 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF APPELLANT : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : ALEXIS POPIELARCHECK, : : : : No. 1788 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order October 9, 2015 In the
More informationCase 1:17-cr RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10. United States v. Michael T. Flynn
Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10 U.S. Department of Justice The Special Counsel's Office Washington, D.C. 20530 November 30, 2017 Robert K. Kelner Stephen P. Anthony Covington
More information