Skip navigation
Punch and Jurists

U.S. v. Smith, No. 95-8120 (11th Cir.) (101 F.3d 98) (December 5, 1996) (Judge Rosemary Barkett)

Loaded on Dec. 1, 1996 published in Punch and Jurists December 30, 1996
Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Legal or Factual Challenges - assertion of.

Here the Court strongly condemned the philosophy that a defendant must meekly and silently "accept any punishment that the government chooses to mete out, however incommensurate with the underlying conduct" to receive a § 3E1.1 reduction.

This is an important case dealing with the concept of reductions in a sentence ...

 

Full article and associated cases available to subscribers.

As a digital subscriber to Punch and Jurists, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

More from this issue:

  1. U.S. v. Smith, No. 95-8120 (11th Cir.) (101 F.3d 98) (December 5, 1996) (Judge Rosemary Barkett)
  2. U.S. v. Carmack, No. 96-1568 (7th Cir.) (100 F.3d 1271) (November 15, 1996) (Judge Terrence T. Evans)
  3. U.S. v. Withers, No. 95-5607 (4th Cir.) (100 F.3d 1142) (November 19, 1996) (Judge J. Harvie III Wilkinson)
  4. U.S. v. Royal, No. 95-2176 (1st Cir.) (100 F.3d 1019) (November 12, 1996) (Judge Juan R. Torruella)
  5. Doe v. U.S., No. 95-5047 (Fed. Cir.) (100 F.3d 1576) (November 15, 1996) (Judge S. Jay Plager)

More from these topics: