Case held that inmates of state prisons who work for industries operated as state instrumentalities are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and are not entitled to receive federal minimum wage for their labor.

Case upheld a defendant's right to appeal from an order of restitution, even though he had signed a broad waiver of appeal rights, because the circumstances surrounding the plea did not clearly demonstrate that he understood what he signed.

Here, the Second Circuit revisited its somewhat startling decision in U.S. ...

Here the Court held that, in a multi-defendant case, the grant of one defendant's motion to extend the time to file motions under the Speedy Trial Act tolls the STA as to all defendants. The Court reasoned that such an extension falls with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) ...

The Court also held that "we hold that forfeiture of proceeds under § 981(a)(1)(C) is not punishment. In reaching this outcome, we remain aware of contrary authority. Lundis urges us to follow the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in United States v. $405,089.23 United States Currency, 33 ...

The principal holding of this case is that even though the Sentencing Commission itself has "made . . . an extraordinary mea culpa acknowledging the enormous unfairness of one of its guidelines" (id. at 450), that is not a sufficient reason to justify a downward departure under the Guidelines. The ...

One of the issues raised in this case was whether the defendant was procedurally barred from bringing a collateral attack based on the Supreme Court's decision in Crosby v. U.S., 506 U.S. 255 (1993). Here, the defendant was tried with another defendant who was in absentia, and he challenged the ...

Here the Court affirmed that "full disclosure" is the price that Congress has attached to relief under the safety valve statute, and that the burden falls on the defendant to prove his entitlement to a sentence reduction.

While the Court, in this case, rejects the defendant's claim that he should ...

The principal holding of this case is that even though the Sentencing Commission itself has "made . . . an extraordinary mea culpa acknowledging the enormous unfairness of one of its guidelines" (id. at 450), that is not a sufficient reason to justify a downward departure under the Guidelines. The ...

In this case the principal issue was whether a civil forfeiture pursuant to a non-drug statute (18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)) constituted punishment for double jeopardy purposes, when the court had already sentenced the defendant to imprisonment and had ordered the defendant to pay restitution for the same property that was ...

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - The evils of allowing the prosecutor to control the sentencing process were graphically described by District Judge Michael when he wrote:

"Due process in sentencing, should, at its most basic, include the right to be sentenced by an impartial authority, unbiased and not predisposed in ...

Here the Court rejected the Government's attempt to try two separate immigration fraud conspiracies together, despite the fact that it admitted there was no single overarching scheme nor identity of conspirators.

This case is cited because it is a rare example of a defendant winning a motion under Rule 8(b) ...

The case is noted particularly for Judge Wald's dissent in which she forcefully argued that 18 USC § 3553(a)(2) allows a downward departure even in the absence of atypicality under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. She wrote: "Appellants Oscar Anderson and Samuel Hogan asked the district court to grant a downward departure ...

One of the issues raised by the defendant on this appeal was that the trial court erred by improperly taking into account a transaction that was outside the scope of the charged conspiracy and was not properly categorized as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(2) of the Guidelines. The Court held ...

This case involved Rule 32(a)(2) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. which requires the court to inform the defendant of his right to appeal. Here, the court opted for strict compliance with the Rule and held that the "failure of the sentencing court to advise the defendant of his right to appeal entitles ...

The defendant argued that even though Rule 43(b) states that the continued presence of a defendant is not required and may be waived, the Rule provides that the defendant must be "initially present" and that such requirement was not complied with in the instant case - and that there was ...