Based on the provisions of Rule 410 of the Fed.R.Evid. and Rule 11(e)(6) of the Fed.R.Crim.P., it is
generally assumed that evidence of a guilty plea which is later withdrawn is not admissible, in any civil
or criminal proceeding, against the defendant who made the plea or who was a ...

Court vacated restitution order due to failure to make required findings.

The defendant in this case was sentenced and his sentence was enhanced two levels for obstruction of justice, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, premised on what the court considered to be perjured testimony. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed because it ruled that the district court's finding that the defendant's ...

Court affirmed that definition of "victims" is narrower under the VWPA than under the Guidelines.

In discussing the Vienna Convention, the Court observed that Article 36 "requires an arresting government to notify a foreign national who has been arrested . . . of his right to contact his consul" (Id., at 520).

The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. His sentence was enhanced for reckless endangerment during flight and he was ordered to pay $20,000 in restitution based on damages to several cars that resulted from a crash. On appeal, the defendant argued that the restitution ...

The defendant in this case was convicted of using unauthorized access devices (stolen credit cards) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2); and at sentencing the court imposed a two level sentence enhancement under § 3A1.1 on the grounds that he had targeted unusually vulnerable victims in his conduct - ...

Case held that when a § 924(c) conviction is reversed on sufficiency of evidence grounds, the case is subject to remand to determine the applicability of the enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1).

Case suggests that lying about relevant conduct (as opposed to the offense of conviction) may not always be an absolute bar to an acceptance of responsibility sentence adjustment under USSG § 3E1.1.

In this case, Judge Williams discusses, very briefly, whether lying about a defendant's relevant conduct (as opposed to ...

Here the Court vacated a new sentence imposed 72 days after the original sentence based on the district court's decision that the new sentence was required to right an injustice, holding it had no authority to make such a change.

While the outcome is the same, the reasoning of the ...

Citing U.S. v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1995), the court held that is is error to delegate the amount and timing of restitution payments to the Probation Office.

The defendant in this case pled guilty to one count of fraudulent use of a social security number and one count of aiding and abetting. He was in the business of counseling people with poor credit. For a fee, he provided his clients with false social security numbers and gave ...

While the outcome is the same, the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit in this case is in sharp conflict with the decision of the First Circuit in U.S. v. Lilly, 80 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1996). In that case, the Court held that a sentencing judge retains the right, sua ...

One of the issues raised in this case was a claim by two defendants that, following their successful appeal of a gun charge under the Bailey ruling, the district court was precluded from enhancing their base offense levels under § 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines because of the Guidelines prohibition on ...

Back in 1993, Judge Orrick wrote an earlier decision in this case in which he concluded that "[t]he facts [in this case] show such clear, flagrant, and shameful violations of Wang's rights under the Constitution that they ‘shock the conscience' of the Court and deny Wang the due process to ...