US v. Coyle, No. 06-2296, 06-2525
A sentence imposed on remand for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine is reversed and remanded where: 1) the circuit court declined to alter its previous holding that a substantial-assistance reduction from 135 months' to 36 months' imprisonment was unreasonable; and 2) the district court was not authorized to reduce defendant's sentence by 13.5 months based on post-offense rehabilitation
Showing posts with label procedure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label procedure. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
distribute methamphetamine is reversed
US v. Coyle, No. 06-2296, 06-2525
A sentence imposed on remand for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine is reversed and remanded where: 1) the circuit court declined to alter its previous holding that a substantial-assistance reduction from 135 months' to 36 months' imprisonment was unreasonable; and 2) the district court was not authorized to reduce defendant's sentence by 13.5 months based on post-offense rehabilitation
A sentence imposed on remand for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine is reversed and remanded where: 1) the circuit court declined to alter its previous holding that a substantial-assistance reduction from 135 months' to 36 months' imprisonment was unreasonable; and 2) the district court was not authorized to reduce defendant's sentence by 13.5 months based on post-offense rehabilitation
US v. Barnes, No. 06-2129
Suppression of evidence seized during a body cavity search is vacated and remanded where further proceedings are necessary to determine whether an officer ordering the search possessed sufficient credible information to establish a reasonable suspicion that defendant was concealing drugs internally
Suppression of evidence seized during a body cavity search is vacated and remanded where further proceedings are necessary to determine whether an officer ordering the search possessed sufficient credible information to establish a reasonable suspicion that defendant was concealing drugs internally
Monday, June 04, 2007
the magnitude of the variance and method of calculation were unreasonable
US v. Allen, No. 06-6111
In a case involving a variance of more than 2.5 times the top end of the U.S.S.G. recommended range, whatever latitude a sentencing court may have to adjust a sentence in an exercise of Booker discretion, it may not discard the advisory Guideline range and impose sentence on the basis of evidence of a defendant's uncharged, unrelated misconduct, whether actually committed or contemplated for the future. A sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute is vacated where, although the sentencing court may consider defendant's unrelated, non-charged conduct in fashioning a sentence, the magnitude of the variance and method of calculation were unreasonable.
In a case involving a variance of more than 2.5 times the top end of the U.S.S.G. recommended range, whatever latitude a sentencing court may have to adjust a sentence in an exercise of Booker discretion, it may not discard the advisory Guideline range and impose sentence on the basis of evidence of a defendant's uncharged, unrelated misconduct, whether actually committed or contemplated for the future. A sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute is vacated where, although the sentencing court may consider defendant's unrelated, non-charged conduct in fashioning a sentence, the magnitude of the variance and method of calculation were unreasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)