US v. Baker, No. 06-3115
Sentence based on guilty plea to fraud and related offenses is vacated where the court impermissibly and prejudicially participated in plea negotiations with defendant
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
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)