Included in this multi-issue decision is a discussion of the meaning of the term "related" for purposes of § 4A1.2(a)(2). The Guidelines say that prior convictions are considered related if, inter alia, they were consolidated for trial or sentencing. This case holds that "simply because the same court imposes concurrent ...
Case held that when a defendant's sentence of imprisonment is reduced below the time already served due to a Guideline amendment, the defendant's supervised release obligation should be reduced to commence on the date he should have been released.
Here the Court held that "in view of the language of ...
This is an important (albeit fairly technical) decision that explores the enormously complex and convoluted
intricacies of Rule 404(b) of the Fed.R.Evid. which attempts to define when "prior bad acts" evidence can
be used at trial. That Rule prohibits the use of "other crimes evidence" for the purpose of proving ...
On the first appeal in this case, the Second Circuit remanded for further findings, concluding that "as to none of the [government's] proffered bases did the court find that Reed's intent was to obstruct justice or to do an act that was inherently such an obstruction." On remand, the district ...
The Courts of Appeals have reached differing conclusions on the issue of whether a defendant should be allowed credit against his sentence of supervised release for extra time served in prions. Compare United States v. Blake, 88 F.3d 824, 825 (CA9 1996) (supervised release commences on the date defendants “should ...
This decision should be read in conjunction with the Third Circuit's later decision on the same isse - U.S. v. Dozier, 119 F.3d 239 (3rd Cir. 1997) - where the Court stated that the ruling in this case was limited to a situation where the underlying criminal conduct was a ...
The Court specifically noted that the district court was not asked to include accrued interest as part of the actual loss calculation "although several circuits have approved the practice." (Id., at 771) (See Guideline Amendments 470 and 482). However, in U.S. v. Sharma, 190 F.3d 220, 227 (3rd Cir. 1999), ...
Court held that there was no "manifest necessity" for the declaration of a mistrial as to two of the defendants, and thus retrial of those two defendants was barred by double jeopardy.
This Guideline case deals with the interplay of the Ex Post Facto Clause and which version of the Guidelines is applicable at a defendant's sentencing. The decision clearly affirms the use of the so-called "one book rule" required by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(2). It also calls for a two step process ...
