"Defendant's last argument concerns the interplay between two statutes: 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Section 922(o) bans the private possession of any machine gun made after the effective date of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) on May 19, 1986. [FN5] Section 5861(d) of the National ...

This case deals with the murky concept of "losses" under the Sentencing Guidelines and it shows how judges will often routinely, but incorrectly, use "consequential losses" to increase a defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1. Here, the defendants were convicted of bankruptcy and wire fraud; and, at sentencing, the district ...

Here the defendant claimed that the delay in resentencing him was prejudicial because he spent most of that time in a local jail rather than a Federal penitentiary, thus depriving him of extended visitation hours, as well as educational and vocational opportunities through the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

While the ...

Here the Court rejected a claim that the defendant was denied a fair trail because of the judge's alleged pervasive, often leading questions that were designed to rehabilitate the Government's witnesses and undermine the defense.

The Court distinguished U.S. v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 1998) for several reasons. ...

In her dissent, Judge Kennedy disagreed that the VAWA criminalized the defendant's pre-travel violence; and Judge Wellford stated "I cannot agree that vague threats, unaccompanied by any physical violence during the course of interstate travel, is sufficient for conviction" under the Act. (Id., at 339).

Here the Court rejected a ...

This case is another example of how the courts protect the criminal justice system - even when law enforcement officials maliciously abuse their power. In this civil rights suit for damages, the plaintiff was acquitted of charges of sexual assault of his stepdaughter. After his acquittal, he sought damages against ...

The Court acknowledged that "Overbroad statutes by their nature present a host of difficulties for our system of ordered liberty, not the least of which is a chilling effect on the communication of lawful ideas. But a statute will not be invalidated as overbroad unless its overbreath is 'real, but ...

"In order to be found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), an individual must knowingly possess "3 or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other matter" containing a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The central issue on appeal is the appropriate meaning ...

Here the Court vacated an armed career criminal enhancement based on the fact that one of the "qualifying" convictions had occurred after the instant felon-in-possession charge and thus was not a "previous" conviction as required by 18 USC § 924(e).

The defendant was convicted as a felon in possession of ...

Here the defendant contended that the district court erred in concluding that he was not prejudice by the failure of his appellate counsel to challenge the trial court's incorrect definition of reasonable doubt and its incorrect statement that the jury could convict even if there was a reasonable doubt. The ...

Here the Sixth Circuit held that a sentencing judge's ex parte consideration of victims' impact letters violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, constituted plain error, and required vacation of the sentence.

In this case the Sixth Circuit held that a sentencing court's consideration of victim impact letters, without disclosing their contents to the ...

Case held that the vulnerable victim enhancement in USSG § 3A1.1(b) does not require proof of targeting, I.e., that defendant intentionally selected or targeted victims based on vulnerability.

The Court rejected the defendant's claim that he did not know his victims' ages, given that 22 of his 24 victims were ...

Here the Sixth Circuit held that a sentencing judge's ex parte consideration of victims' impact letters violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, constituted plain error, and required vacation of the sentence.

In this case the Sixth Circuit held that a sentencing court's consideration of victim impact letters, without disclosing their contents to the ...

In this case, Judge Thompson held that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b), (e)(3) and (h) impose a finite limit on the amount of time for which a defendant may be imprisoned following successive violations of the terms and conditions of his supervised release. The defendant originally pled guilty ...

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Bond v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 98-9349 (4/17/00), the Circuits appear to be split on the issue of whether the manipulatioon of luggage in an overhead rack constituted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. For a similar view, see ...

While case held that the district court violated the defendants' rights by conducting a dual jury trial, it is noted principally for Judge Thompson's dissent in which he reviewed errors that do not qualify as structural errors.

"As the majority recognizes, the distinction between trial and structural errors is not ...

Court held that the admission into evidence of defendants' statements to law enforcement officers, which referred to some of the defendants by name, would not violate the Bruton rule since the statements were sufficiently redacted.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - Some thoughts on the "necessity" argument used by Justice Scalia to support of the expansion of the Fourth Amendment to cover searches of the property of passengers in a car who are not suspected to criminal wrong-doing.

"The Government says it would not contend that, ...

Here the Court gave wide berth to the Government to select the venue for prosecutions under 18 USC § 924(c)(1), holding that venue was proper in any district where the underlying substantive offense was committed, even if the gun was used elsewhere.

In this case the Supreme Court substantially broadened ...

This civil rights case for damages involved a claim by a criminal defense attorney against two prosecutors who executed a search warrant of his attorneys' papers at the same time that they called the attorney's client to testify before a grand jury. The attorney claimed, inter alia, that the search ...

Here the Court held that a defendant's guilty plea does not waive the self-incrimination privilege at sentencing and that the Fifth Amendment does not allow a sentencing judge to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's refusal to speak.

The Supreme Court addressed two important issues in this case: first, whether ...