Here the Court held that, under the provisions of 18 USC 3583(e)(3) and F. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(2), a district court has jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release where the summons was issued during the term but the revocation hearing was not held until after the term expired, ...
In this case, the Court held that it had the authority to grant a Government’s motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), to reduce a sentence based on substantial assistance provided by the defendant more than a year after his sentencing. Here, the defendant was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment on April ...
Ramon Amado Villafranca, the defendant in this case, was a state-court prosecutor from Laredo, Texas. He was convicted in Federal court for accepting bribes in exchange for fixing drug cases, in violation of the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951). After his conviction, he appealed on a number of grounds. ...
In this case the defendants argued that the district court's finding that their offenses involved over 500 grams of cocaine violated the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Apprendi because it resulted in a mandatory minimum term of supervised release. In rejecting that claim, the Court stated:
"Even if ...
In this decision, the Ninth Circuit struck down Alaska’s version of “Megan’s Law” on narrow grounds, holding that a provision of the law requiring the posting of the sex offenders’ home and work addresses on the Internet, as well as requiring them to report to the police every three months, ...
There are times when the Government’s fixation on its goal of achieving absolute control over the sentencing process overwhelms all the other senses and blinds it to approaching dangers. That is precisely what happened in this case: obdurately bent on eking out the maximum penalty it felt was in the ...
In a decision that doubles as a quick refresher course on the topic, the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant’s right to due process was violated when the trial court (Judge Means) permitted the prosecutor to argue to the jury that it should infer guilt from the defendant’s election to ...
In U.S. v. Havvard, 117 F.Supp.2d 848 (S.D.Ill. 2000) (P&J, 11/13/00), the defendant challenged the admission into evidence of a fingerprint expert’s testimony that a latent print found on a gun matched an exemplar obtained from the defendant. He called that evidence into question under Rule 701 of the Fed.R.Evid. ...
In this case the Court explained that a finding that the defendant "was not completely hinest in his admissions is an appropriate independent justification for denying the reduction" for acceotance of responsibility. (Id., at 828) (finding that the "lack of trustworthiness in [Carrera's] admissions, his limited admissions, and his changing ...
