Just prior to the instant decision, the Eleventh Circuit held, in U.S. v. Swatzie, No. 00-10729 (11th Cir. 9/27/00), that the plain error rule precluded the defendant in that case from obtaining any appellate relief based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000). ...

Here the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior rulings that customers who are solely end users of drugs sold are not "participants" in a criminal activity within the meaning of the enhancement provided for in USSG § 3B1.1(b).

In this case, although the Court ultimately affirmed the defendant's sentences on other ...

Here the Court held than an unpreserved error arising from the district court's imposition of a sentence based on crack cocaine as the most heavily punishable object of the drug conspiracy would not be notice on appeal.

The defendant in this case was charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine, cocaine ...

Here the Court approved a significant eight-level departure to a defendant convicted of drug crimes in part due to the failure of the Government to disclose potential impeachment material and in part due to serious gross misconduct of his own counsel.

This is an interesting downward departure sentencing order in ...

In this case, the defendant argued that the district court had erred by sentencing him under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 because the Government had failed to prove that the substance involved in his criminal offense was crack cocaine. Although the district court denied the defendant's § 2255 motion, it did grant ...

This is a masterful decision by District Judge Crabb in which she concluded that the fee cap provisions of the PLRA rest on irrational assumptions - and rather than creating a disincentive to the filing of frivolous lawsuits, they will increase such suits.

In this case, Judge Crabb took a ...

This case is noted for Judge Godbold's dissent. In a case he described as “shabby,” Judge Godbold lashed out at the majority’s unsigned, per curiam decision affirming the drug conviction of a U.S. citizen who was convicted because the prosecutor “repeatedly [made] use of what she knew to be manufactured ...

After the defendant in this drug case, Jaime Duran-Benitez (Duran) pled guilty to possession of heroin with intent to distribute, he sought a “significant” downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 on the grounds that his former defense counsel, one Robert Blossner, Esq., had an actual conflict of interest that significantly ...

The defendant in this case, Nebrum Pounds, pled guilty to one count of interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and one count of using and carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ...

In this case the Court granted a certificate of appealability on the single issue of whether the defendant had validly waived his section 2255 right to challenge his conviction and sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel resulting from counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the ...

Here the Court affirmed the district court's four-level downward departures to two anti-nuclear protestors who broke into an ICBM site and cause some damage because the applicable guideline, § 2M2.3, provided for no gradations in punishment.

In this case the district court granted four-level downward departures to two anti-nuclear protestors ...

Here joining all the other Circuits to have ruled on the question, the Court held that a motion for a downward departure based on substantial assistance cannot succeed under USSG § 5K2.0; it is only permitted under § 5K2.1 when the Govt. brings the motion.

In this case the defendant ...

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000), the Ninth Circuit altered its analysis, but not the result, of its prior opinion in this case reported at 181 F.3d 1087.

This is one of those revealing cases that shows the arrogance of entrenched power - in this case, the power of the DEA. Here, four different law enforcement officers working on a task force with the DEA testified to four “slightly altered versions” of the events surrounding the defendant’s being ...

This case and Johnson v. Daley, No. 98-C-0518-C (W.D.Wisc. 10/6/00) case present two totally different philosophical views about whether the cap on legal fees contained in § 803(d)(3) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3)) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. In Hadix, a majority ...