Skip navigation

Search

30 results
Page 2 of 2. « Previous | 1 2 |

Article • September 1, 1997 • from P&J September, 1997
U.S. v. Trigg, No. 96-1487 (7th Cir.) (119 F.3d 493) (July 8, 1997) (Judge Kenneth F. Ripple) by Here, the Court rejected a claim that the district court had improperly delegated too much discretion to the Probation Officerto set a schedule for the payment of restitution. The Court did acknowledge …
Article • May 1, 1997 • from P&J May, 1997
U.S. v. Workman, No. 95-1330, No. 270 (2nd Cir.) (110 F.3d 915) (April 1, 1997) (Judge Pierre N. Leval) by Here the Court rejected the Government's argument that an obscure portion of the legislative history of the Criminal Fine Improvements Act of 1987 permitted the court to delegate to the …
Article • April 1, 1997 • from P&J April, 1997
U.S. v. Fuentes, No. 94-4916 (11th Cir.) (107 F.3d 1515) (March 25, 1997) (Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat) by Contrary to the rule in most other Circuits, here the Eleventh Circuit holds that, under its precedent, the law "clearly authorizes delegation of payment schedules to the probation office". United States v. …
Article • September 1, 1996 • from P&J September, 1996
U.S. v. Stover, No. 95-3148 (8th Cir.) (93 F.3d 1379) (August 22, 1996) (Judge Theodore McMillian) by United States v. Stover, 93 F.3d 1379 (8th Cir. 1996) (Judge McMillian) Smullen v. United States, 94 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1996) (Judge Campbell) United States v. Mortimer, 94 F.3d 89 (2nd Cir. …
Article • September 1, 1996 • from P&J September, 1996
U.S. v. Mortimer, No. 96-1067 (2nd Cir.) (94 F.3d 89) (August 29, 1996) (Judge J. Daniel Mahoney) by Here the Court held that the BOP could not, through its Inmate Financial Responsibilty Program, lawfully exercise the judicial responsibility of establishing a payment schedule for court imposed monetary penalties. United States …
Article • May 1, 1996 • from P&J May, 1996
U.S. v. Blake, No. 95-5273 (4th Cir.) (81 F.3d 498) (April 18, 1996) (Judge William W. Jr. Wilkins) by Citing U.S. v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1995), the court held that is is error to delegate the amount and timing of restitution payments to the Probation Office.
Article • April 1, 1996 • from P&J March, 1996
U.S. v. Miller, No. 94-5951 (4th Cir.) (77 F.3d 71) (March 6, 1996) (Judge Clyde H. Hamilton) by One of the issues decided in this case is that a district court may not delegate its authority to set the amount and timing of fine payments to the Bureau of Prisons …
Article • July 1, 1995
U.S. v. Mohammad, No. 93-2837 (7th Cir.) (53 F.3d 1426) (April 27, 1995) (Judge Kenneth F. Ripple) by Case held that when a sentencing court "inappropriately delegates to the probation department its authority to establish a payment schedule for restitution", the order must be vacated.
Article • June 1, 1995
U.S. v. Khan, No. 93-1797 (2nd Cir.) (53 F.3d 507) (April 21, 1995) (Judge Roger J. Miner) by Court held that district court could not authorize probation department to determine schedule of restitution payments as a special condition of supervised release.
Article • April 1, 1995
U.S. v. Johnson, No. 94-5472 (4th Cir.) (48 F.3d 806) (March 3, 1995) (Judge Paul V. Niemeyer) by Fourth Circuit joins a majority of Circuits holding that sentencing courts cannot delegate to probation officers the right to determine either the amount of restitution or the schedule of payments.
Page 2 of 2. « Previous | 1 2 |