The defendant in this case, a criminal defense lawyer, was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). He appealed, arguing that he should have been granted a judgment of acquittal ...

After the Eleventh Circuit's earlier unpublished decision in this case (reported at 202 F.3d 287 (11th Cir. 2000) (Table) was vacated by the Supreme Court (121 S.Ct. 751 (2001)) and remanded for further review "in light of Apprendi," the Eleventh Circuit held that such a remand does not require a ...

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit agreed to rehear this drug sentencing case en banc because of its "exceptional importance"; and it requested the parties to address three specific questions.

This brief per curiam order is phase two of one of the 49 convictions vacated to date ...

This case is noted for its discussion of two Apprendi issues: a) whether Apprendi requires the jury to determine the facts needed to impose a mandatory minimum; and b) whether, on a remand, the court can reimpose the same sentence by "stacking" sentences.

This is an interesting Apprendi decision because ...

This is the companion case to Daniels v. U.S., 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (both of which were decided on the same day by identical 5 to 4 margins). In both cases, the Court was faced with the question of whether Federal postconviction relief is available when a prisoner challenges a ...

In 1994, the Supreme Court addressed, in Custis v. U.S., 511 U.S. 485 (1994), whether a defendant, facing an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) (ACCA), could collaterally attack the validity of the previous state convictions used to enhance his federal sentence. The Court ...