Each week, out of the 70-odd new criminal decisions published by the Federal courts, there are, on average and by our count, some 10% of those cases that involve claims by defendants who argue that they were improperly denied the sentencing relief they were promised based on their “substantial cooperation” ...

Here the Court held that an alleged Apprendi error (not submitting to the jury the issue of how much drugs the defendant sold on three occasions to a government informant) dir not rise to the level of plain error.

The defendant in this case challenged his 30-year sentence as a ...

This brief decision addressed two related Apprendi issues: (a) whether a defendant can raise an Apprendi claim on a direct appeal after "forfeiting" the claim by not raising it in the district court; and (b) whether a general admission by the defendant of the drug quantity is sufficient to cure ...

In this case, the Ninth Circuit rejected as improper an eight-level downward departure that had been granted by District Judge Walker of the N.D.Cal. to a defendant in a drug case on the basis of “two unusual postoffense circumstances - failure of the government to disclose potential impeachment material and ...

Here the Court ruled that Sheriffs may use stun belts on criminal defendants at trial if the defendants present a risk to courtroom security, but not if a defendant is merely disruptive.

In this case, court officials appealed from the issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of a ...

District court lacks authority under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) to "credit" defendant for the time he had served on a state parole violation sentence in a conviction for re-entry in the country following deportation. For a contrary view, see Ruggiano v. Reish, No. 01-3703 (3rd Cir. 10/01/2002), where the Third Circuit ...

The Court started its opinion in this case with the following statement: "A request by a petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for an evidentiary hearing under the District Court's discretionary power is not unusual and not often granted. However, in this appeal, the petitioner presents a rare situation where ...

Here the Eleventh Circuit held that the "safe harbor" provisions of 18 USC § 1515(c) provide an attorney with a complete affirmative defense aginst an obstruction of justice charge under 18 USC § 1512(b)(3) which the Government must then disprove.

This is a case that should be of interest to ...

The issue raised in this case was whether a defendant's confirmation of the accuracy of presentence report (PSR) automatically constitutes a waiver of any appellate challenge to the PSR. The Court held that when an inadvertent forfeiture of the defendant’s right to object occurs, an appellate court may still review ...