Punch and Jurists

U.S. v. Mullanix, No. 96-30121 (9th Cir.) (99 F.3d 323) (October 30, 1996) (Judge Thomas G. Nelson) by Case held that Guideline Amendment 516 which changed calculation of marijuana equivalency did not affect mandatory minimum sentence. United States v. Mullanix, 99 F.3d 323 (9th Cir. 1996) (Judge Nelson) United States …

U.S. v. Mullanix, No. 96-30121 (9th Cir.) (99 F.3d 323) (October 30, 1996) (Judge Thomas G. Nelson) by Case held that Guideline Amendment 516 which changed calculation of marijuana equivalency did not affect mandatory minimum sentence. United States v. Mullanix, 99 F.3d 323 (9th Cir. 1996) (Judge Nelson) United States …

U.S. v. Felix, No. 95-50250 (9th Cir.) (87 F.3d 1057) (June 27, 1996) (Judge James T. Jr. Trimble) by Court held that Guideline Amendment 518 merely clarified, rather than amended, the Guidelines by specifying the weight of drugs to be considered in a completed transaction and therefore should be given …

U.S. v. Kissick, No. 95-6055 (10th Cir.) (69 F.3d 1048) (November 6, 1995) (Judge Robert H. Henry) by This case deals extensively with Guideline Amendment # 487 which was adopted on November 1, 1993, and which provided that, for purposes of the Guidelines, "cocaine base" means crack. That amendment was …

U.S. v. Washington, No. 93-50786 (9th Cir.) (66 F.3d 1101) (October 4, 1995) (Judge Stephen Reinhardt) by The Court held held that the district court erred in applying Section 2J1.2(c)(1)'s cross-reference to Section 2X3.1 ("Accessory After the Fact"). Application of the cross-reference resulted in a higher offense level than Washington …

U.S. v. Morsley, No. 94-5203 (4th Cir.) (64 F.3d 907) (August 31, 1995) (Judge Diana Gribbon Motz) by Although this case does not specifically deal with Amendment No. 506, one of the arguments made by the defendant in this case was a general challenge to the constitutionality of U.S.S.G. § …

U.S. v. Capers, No. 93-5625 (4th Cir.) (61 F.3d 1100) (August 10, 1995) (Judge M. Blane Michael) by Case held that the courts can give retroactive effect to a clarifying (as opposed to substantive) amendment regardless of whether it is listed in USSG § 1B1.10. This decision confirms [at headnote …