In reviewing one of the many sentencing issues involved in this case, the Third Circuit reversed a restitution order on the grounds that the lower court had failed to make the findings of fact as required by its prior decisions in U.S. v. Logar, 975 F.2d 958 (3rd Cir. 1992) ...
This en banc decision reverses both a prior decision in the same case (U.S. v. Caron, 64 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1995) and an earlier decision on the same issues, U.S. v. Ramos, 961 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1992). It addresses the labyrinthine language contained in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) ...
On of the interesting aspect of this decision is that the Court observed that there are some defendants for whom prison incarceration makes no sense at all.
Prior to this appeal, the district court (Judge Marshall) dismissed an indictment for excessive pre-indictment delay because she concluded that the defendant had made an actual showing or prejudice since the delay had prevented the offenses from being grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, which effectively increased the total sentence that ...
Case held that "because plea bargaining requires defendants to waive fundamental constitutional rights, we hold prosecutors engaging in plea bargaining to 'the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance'." (Id. At 11).
This is a rare case in which a sentence was vacated because the Court agreed with the ...
Case held that the Guidelines do not prohibit applying sentence enhancements under both § 2F1.1(b)(4)(B) - formerly codified at § 2F1.1(b)(3)(B) - and § 3B1.3 of the Guidelines.
Based on the Supreme Court's holding in Witte v. U.S., 515 U.S. 389, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior precedent and held that double jeopardy is not violated when court considers a pre-Guidelines loss twice for two different sentences.
One of the issues raised in this case was whether double ...
This is one of those crazy cases that shows the bountiful compassion of the Bureau of Prisons. A 76 year old defendant was convicted of bank fraud. His counsel moved for a downward departure from his sentencing range of 27 to 33 months and asked the court to impose a ...
Here the Court explained that the purpose of the enhancement contained in § 2B5.1(b)(2) is to provide harsher sentences for individuals who possess counterfeiting devices and produce counterfeit instruments, rather than persons who merely pass counterfeit obligations. Thus the enhancement does not apply to individuals who merely photocopy notes that ...
The defendant in this case was a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when a grand jury indicted him on 200 counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Specifically, the indictment alleged that Kones had submitted over $1,000,000 in false insurance ...
Judge Hornby reviewed the elements of both the insanity defense (under Rule 12.2 and under 18 U.S.C. § 17(b)) and the diminished capacity defense as defined in numerous reported cases. He noteed that "Federal law is clear that a defendant must prove his insanity defense by 'clear and convincing evidence'.". ...
Case held that a psychologist could testify as to defendant's mental condition at time crime was committed, but that such testimony alone was not sufficient to submit insanity defense to the jury.
This case contains a lengthy and detailed description of the determination of "loss" under both § 2B1.1 and § 2F1.1 of the Guidelines - particularly in the context of the Third Circuit's somewhat controversial and much discussed decision in U.S. v. Kopp, 951 F.2d 521 (3rd Cir. 1991). In this ...
Prior to this appeal, the district court (Judge Marshall) dismissed an indictment for excessive pre-indictment delay because she concluded that the defendant had made an actual showing or prejudice since the delay had prevented the offenses from being grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, which effectively increased the total sentence that ...