The defendant in this case protested the attribution to him of 150 pounds of marijuana for sentencing purposes, arguing that the 150 pound lot never existed and was not the object of any conspiracy. He further alleged that his statements about it constituted mere "puffing" in an attempt to gain ...

Here the Court reversed a district court's determination that the defendant was not entitled to an extra one-level sentence reduction under USSG § 3E1.1(b)(2) by waiting until the case had been placed on the court's calendar.

In this case, Judge Boyle denied the defendant a one-level reduction in his sentence ...

Joining the D.C. Circuit, the Eighth Circuit holds that the Parole Commission does have the authority to reimpose a term of special parole, rather than regular parole, following revocation.

Here the Sixth Circuit adopted the majority view that sentencing following remand should be conducted de novo and is not limited only to the reasons for the remand.

Court held that defendant had no Fifth Amendment right to destroy incriminating papers; and therefore an enhancement for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 was proper.

One of the issues raised in this case was whether the district court erred in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement on the defendant, ...

The district court in this case ordered the defendant to serve a 110-month sentence to run consecutively for a state sentence and the defendant appealed arguing that the new sentence should have been imposed to run concurrently with the existing state sentence. On appeal, the sentence was affirmed; and in ...

Here the Court granted habeas relief to a sentence who had been sentenced to 20 years to life, because his counsel allowed him to reject a plea offer of 1 to 3 years without explaining the wisdom or consequences of such rejection.

In this case the Second Circuit granted habeas ...

Court firmly held that "the fact that a courier plays an essential role in an importation scheme does not alone necessarily preclude him from receiving a reduction for a minor role." (Id., at 382).

Court held that testimony by fellow inmates did not violate the Massiah rule.

Here, despite agreeing with the defendant that he played a virtually identical role in the activities that the Government alleged was two separate conspiracies, the Court held that successive prosecutions did not violate double jeopardy.

In a rare departure from the norm, Judge Crow directs the Government to comply with the "notice"
requirements of Rule 404(b) and advise the defendant whether it intended to introduce evidence of prior bad acts at trial. In response to a request from the defendant, the Government merely stated that ...