The South Florida-based defendants in an alleged mortgage relief scam will surrender their assets and be banned permanently from providing mortgage relief and debt relief services to consumers under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. This settlement represents the FTC’s largest judgment to date against a purported mortgage assistance relief provider. In 2012, as […]
Defandants in Phony Mortgage Relief Scheme to Pay Nearly $3.6 Million
↧
↧
Hockey coach with East Bay program affiliated with Sharks allowed to continue despite sex conviction
↧
SHOULD WE USE INTERLOCK INSTEAD OF LICENSE SUSPENSIONS FOR OHIO DUI/OVI SENTENCES?
An Ohio DUI / OVI sentence has several parts. There is mandatory jail time (or a driver intervention program for a first offense), a mandatory fine, and a mandatory license suspension. For a first offense, the license suspension is a minimum of six months and a maximum of three years, and the judge has discretion to grant or deny limited driving privileges. There are also optional sanctions for a first offense, and one of those sanctions is the use of an ignition interlock device. Proposed legislation in New Jersey would replace mandatory license suspensions with mandatory use of an ignition interlock. Should Ohio consider this change?
An ignition interlock device (IID) is a mechanism installed in a vehicle that measures the alcohol present on someone's breath. After the IID is installed, the driver will have to blow into the IID before he or she is able to start the engine. The vehicle will not start if the alcohol concentration on that person's breath exceeds a predetermined limit.
In New Jersey, there is opposition to the proposed move from license suspensions to ignition interlock devices. The main argument against the change is that removing the license suspension would remove 'the strongest deterrence to drunken driving'. The deterrent effect of a license suspension is questionable, as thousands of people drive drunk in Ohio every year despite the existing license suspension and despite frequent anti-DUI PR campaigns. In addition, the reality is that losing one's license does not prevent someone from getting into a car and driving again. It is illegal to drive on a suspended license, but that doesn't actually stop a person from driving under suspension.
↧
Maryland Court Of Appeals Called Upon To Determine Extent Of DWI's Suspects' Right To Counsel
Last week, the Maryland Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case of Motor Vehicle Administration v. Deering, and was called on to decide whether law enforcement officers can deny a motorist's request to consult with an attorney prior to submitting to a breath-alcohol content (BAC) test.
The case stems from a May 3, 2012, traffic stop of the defendant by a Fruitland, Maryland police officer. The officer placed the defendant under arrest for DWI and transported her to the Maryland State Police barracks in Princess Anne. Upon arrival at the barracks, the officer asked the defendant to submit to a breathalyzer test to determine her blood alcohol content.
The defendant asked the officer to allow her to call an attorney prior to taking the test, but the officer refused. After the officer read a written statement informing the defendant that the penalty for refusing to take the test was automatic suspension of her license, the defendant took the test. The result of the test showed the defendant's BAC to be 0.16, more than twice the legal limit in Maryland.
Maryland's "implied consent" law states that a motorist that has been lawfully stopped and detained by a police officer, who has probable cause to believe that the individual has been driving while intoxicated, has impliedly consented to submit to a chemical test of his or her blood, breath, or urine for the purposes of determining blood alcohol content.
Refusing to submit to a chemical test automatically results in an administrative license suspension of 120 days for a first offense, and one year for subsequent offenses. Police are required to notify DWI suspects of the consequences of a refusal to submit to a chemical test.
In this case, the defendant argued that the police officer's refusal to allow consultation with an attorney prior to taking the breath test violated the right to due process under the United States and Maryland Constitutions. The defendant's argument was met with skepticism by Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera, who commented that Maryland drivers impliedly consent to submitting to a BAC test as a condition of having a license, and that the right to due process does not apply when consent has already been given.
The National College for DUI Defense and the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association have voiced support for the defendant's position in a joint friend-of-the-court brief. The brief states, "[t]he manner in which the officer reads the form can...detract from its ability to be understood. Additionally, most [DWI] suspects have no legal training or understanding to assist them in making an intelligent decision, that usually occurs late at night, when they are tired, afraid, upset and traumatized."
The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending the Constitutional rights of individuals that have been accused of DWI or DUI. If you or someone you know has been charged with a DWI or DUI in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.
↧
U.S. v. Breton - Be Wary to Whom You Speak of Pending Charges
Most sex crimes defendants know they need to keep a tight lip when it comes to discussing the charges against them.
However, there is sometimes a natural tendency to relax the tongue around those you trust. It's true that in certain instances, communications with your loved ones and a handful of professionals are protected. But this is not without exception. Even when there isn't an outright confession, there could be an admission of facts that could be incriminating.
Painful as it may be, people facing years-long sentences for serious crimes need to weigh whether it's more important to unburden themselves to loved ones in the short-term or curtail their conversations now for the benefit of their long-term future.
↧
↧
New York Cops Beat Up 84-Year-Old For Jaywalking
An 84-year-old man was left bruised and bloodied after New York police officers attempted to detain the man following a violation for jaywalking. The incident occurred Sunday at the corner of Broadway and 96th Street, in the Upper West Side of New York City. According to the report, Kang Wong entered the intersection against the […]The post New York Cops Beat Up 84-Year-Old For Jaywalking appeared first on The Appelman Law Firm Law Blog
↧
District Court Was Not Required to Grant "Fast-Track" Departure Motion
United States v. Shand, No. 13-227-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 2014) (Pooler, Parker, and Wesley), available hereThis summary has been provided by noted criminal defense attorney Francisco Celedonio, who also serves on the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:In this illegal reentry case under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), the Circuit affirmed a 77-month sentence imposed following the district court's (Judge Irizarry's) denial of a "fast-track" downward departure motion pursuant to U.S.S.G.§ 5K3.1.Shand was arrested in 2011 after he produced false identification at a traffic stop. ICE determined that he had been previously deported and had reentered without authorization. Shand was thus indicted for being "found in the United States," in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Shand signed a plea agreement under the EDNY's "fast-track" program, which yielded an estimate offense level 16 in CHC III, including a four-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. At the time the agreement was reached, the government believed that Shand had entered the U.S. in 2011. But during the presentence investigation, Probation discovered that Shand had reentered in 2004, not 2011, and that he had a substantially greater criminal history than anticipated: the PSR concluded that Shand was in CHC VI, with a guidelines range of 77-96 months. Regardless, the government moved for the fast-track reduction, but the motion was denied by Judge Irizarry. She sentenced Shand to 77 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Shand argued that the district court was required to grant the government's departure motion. But the Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that, under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, a district court is permitted, but not required, to grant a "fast-track" departure on the government's motion.
↧
Seven-Year Resentencing Delay Did Not Violate Due Process
United States v. Kurti, No. 12-3503-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2014) (Winter, Straub, and Hall) (summary order), available hereThis summary was provided by noted criminal defense attorney Francisco Celedonio, who also serves on the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:This summary order affirms a sentence imposed upon resentencing, after a seven-year delay from the original remand from the Circuit. Kurti argued that the delay violated due process, and also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The Circuit held that the delay alone (some of which was occasioned by Kurti) was insufficient to warrant relief, and that Kurti had to demonstrate "some substantial and demonstrable prejudice" from the delay. Because Kurti faced a substantial sentence (the Guidelines range was 360 months-to-life), he could not succeed on either the due process claim or the claim of substantive unreasonableness.
↧
More Alabama Defendants Are Sent to Prison, Despite Reduction in Crime
The U.S. has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world and many of those behind bars have been locked up for non-violent offenses. Alabama has some of the highest rates of imprisonment and lifetime sentences for non-violent offenders; however, recent report also indicates that despite a reduction in criminal activity, more Alabama … Continue Reading
↧
↧
More Than 650 Arrested During King County DUI Crackdown
More than 650 Arrested During King County DUI Crackdown
Periods of increased DUI enforcement have become a powerful and effective tool for law enforcement agencies intent on keeping public roadways safe. Although enforcement periods and anti-DUI campaigns run throughout the year, they are most common – and most aggressive – during holidays with high rates of alcohol-related auto accidents. In King County and throughout the state of Washington, law enforcement officers recently completed the Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over campaign – making a significant number of DUI arrests.
Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over is a nationwide campaign designed to arrest motorists who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Spanning from November 27 through January 1, the campaign was adopted due to the historically high rates of DUI accidents that occur during the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year holidays. In King County, officers reported a total of 656 DUI arrests during the crackdown period. Statewide, more than 2,720 motorists were arrested for driving under the influence.
Charged with DUI? Call (866)620-9524 for a FREE Case Evaluation
At Dichter Law Office, PLLC, our legal team has seen and handled the repercussions of DUI enforcement periods numerous times. As the number of DUI arrests throughout the years has steadily increased during crackdown periods – and as more law enforcement agencies are receiving grants to fund such anti-DUI campaigns – it has become clear that DUI enforcement is now a top priority. Similar enforcement periods will take place throughout 2014, and agencies are striving to end alcohol-related traffic deaths and serious injuries in Washington by 2030.
For those who have recently been arrested or charged with DUI this past holiday season, working with an experienced and proven Lynnwood DUI lawyer is of the utmost importance. Attorney Jonathan Dichter is available 24/7 to help accused individuals learn more about their charges, the potential penalties they face, and how our firm can help.
To discuss your case, call (425) 296-9358 for a FREE consultation. Dichter Law Office represents clients throughout King County, Snohomish County, and the surrounding communities of Washington.
↧
Never Forgive, Never Forget, Never Pretend It's Easy
It's not revenge, it's retribution. Carefully parsed and calculated. Based not on getting even but on payback. Dispassionate, though driven by hatred. Just as long as we're sure. Really, really sure. Which we can be and if we're wrong, well, that's a small price to pay.OK, I'm not being fair.On the back cover, David Dow says that the "argument is one that any death penalty supporter will identify with, but more importantly, it's one any opponent must answer." Dow also says of Robert Blecker that he "is probably the most articulate death penalty supporter around, and easily the most honest." Allowing some hyperbole for what is, after all, a blurb (and one by someone who is specifically thanked in the acknowledgements as "my sometime public adversary, [who] gave me a model with his own moving memoir"), that may just be true.In it's simplest formulation, one he repeats with some regularity, in his book, The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice Among the Worst of the Worst, Blecker has a single point.The past counts.To forget that, is to trivialize. We praise, so must we blame. We honor, so must we . . . . Well, that's where it gets tricky. The antonym of honor is something like revile. But that's not Blecker's choice. He chooses hate. And really, it all follows from that. It's a moral position. Morality requires hatred of evil and, specifically, those who both do evil and are in fact evil. Those who do the worst things and are themselves the worst people. Morality requires that they be killed. It's about Justice with an uppercase J. I've said before and repeatedly that I don't know what that is (though I can recognize injustice. Becker's on a different plane. He knows what Justice is. It's the cry of the dead for death in return. And he can recognize it, at least some of the time, with absolute certainty."On every question there are two sides," the Sophists claimed and still do. I knew better. I had always known better. Justice wasn't simply a matter of opinion. Whatever "progressives" might proclaim, Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, and Richard Speck were evil and deserved to die. That was moral fact.Justice demands payment in kind - well, no, that's not right. It doesn't demand payment in kind or it would require, in some cases, lingering torture. Justice demands quick but painful death - following a period of confinement as horrific as the 8th Amendment would allow. Of course, if you start there, you end up there.There may be a mistake. Every effort should be made to avoid it. Every possibility of error - both on guilt and on whether this or that Hitler or Manson wannabe is actually the worst of the worst who did the worst things - should be indulged. No screw ups except those that are beyond human capacity to recognize as plausible. But then?Sometimes innocent persons must get hurt for the public good. Sometimes we must reluctantly risk innocent lives for the sake of justice.Which has the virtue at least of honesty.It's easy to dismiss Blecker as a self-satisfied, egotistical prig who simply knows where we who oppose execution are deluded. That's not wrong, but it's also not fair. Blecker does what an honest thinker does. He challenges himself.Blecker confronts his own certainty, his own sense that the only thing that matters is what whoever it was did back then. And so he tells at some length of his relationship with Daryl Holton, on death row in Tennessee for the murder of his four children. Holton is, at least in Becker's account, accepting. He opposed efforts by his attorneys to fight his death sentence. He deserved to die because the jury said so. The law is what it is. He insisted he was competent, insisted he should die - chose the electric chair rather than the gurney. He was in charge, taking the responsibility the jury said was his.Blecker interviewed him repeatedly, corresponded with him, argued with him. Tried again and again to get him to admit that he was a monster. Or that he had remorse. Daryl looked up at me--looked me right in the eyes. "You're looking for remorse," he said quietly, "but you're not getting it." The silence between us sunk in, as his words echoed and my resentment built. "Why would I express remorse to you? You have some illegitimate emotional investment in my children who you never met. it's one thing to act from a civic sense of duty. But your imagined emotional connection to them is unreal, unhealthy, and illegitimate.. . . We sat and stared at each other. I felt sorry for him. Then I hated him. Why would he not show remorse? Why did I need that?Grudgingly, Blecker concluded that in many respects he liked the guy, that he was, ultimately, a friend. That left him with some ambivalence. I mean, it's hard to believe that someone you've come to know and like and respect, to call a friend for godssake, should be killed. Yet that's absolutely where he ended up.Perhaps we did make a mistake by executing Daryl Holton. It disturbs me deeply. But in the end, it remains a price I'm willing to pay for justice.The odd mistake, no matter how sure Blecker is. Well, yeah, but omelets require broken eggs. And it's not just executions. Prisons for bad people should be hellholes where the horror is unrelieved. But that would put prison guards at more risk, Blecker's told by a Warden. His response?Make life as unpleasant as you can. Legally. Even if you endanger your staff slightly more.Justice is a harsh mistress. Morality is tough. But then Abraham was prepared to kill his beloved son because his god told him to.Daryl Holton's is far from the most horrific story Blecker tells. He befriends Dr. Petit and spends time watching the trial of Joshua Komisarjevsky, cheering the death sentence but bemoaning his conviction that it's unlikely to be carried out. He talks about Andres Behring Breivik, mass murderer who will serve only 21 years in prison - and those without being tortured. (In fact, it's likely that Breivik will serve considerably more than 21 years - possibly the rest of his life. Blecker ignores the provision of Norwegian law that allows the sentence to be extended for 5-year intervals, repeatedly, should Breivik be considered still dangerous at the end of his sentence.)And he goes to Germany to teach, a place he swore he'd never go because the Germans must never be forgiven for the holocaust. But he goes, to teach the young of that non-capital-punishment nation that they should kill. And teach he does. But he also listens. He listens, for instance, to Andrew Hammel who's also there teaching and whom he debates.I personally think Breivik should be strung up from a tree," And Hammel candidly admitted in response. "I think he deserves to die--metaphysically," he continued. "he's about the guiltiest criminal ever. Only I don't think the state has a right to kill him. [Applause] I just don't trust the state enough to do that. It's really hard because Breivik is so heinous. But we're not going to sink to his level We protect his human dignity not for his sake but for our sake. We treat him better than he deserves because of what it says about us as a society, about our ability to overcome these completely understandable and natural feelings of vengeance and hatred. Blecker understands the force and strength of Hammel's argument and rejects it. We shouldn't "overcome those natural feelings of vengeance and hatred." We should, he says, embrace them.Blecker's is a serious book by a serious guy. It deserves to be taken seriously. But ultimately it needs to be understood not as an argument (and it is, frankly, weakest as an argument) but as a declaration of faith. A faith that Blecker challenges, that he confronts, that he considers, but that he holds, well, faithfully.In an Appendix he calls "Countering the Abolitionists: Their Arguments, Our Replies," Blecker responds, with varied success, to simplistic versions of arguments some (but by no means all) abolitionists offer. It's at the end that we get to the nub.10. IT'S JUST WRONGArgue all you like, we're still sure.Countering the ClaimAt last we reach common ground. We too feel just as certain.As I say, Blecker's isn't really an argument. His insistence that he's after retribution rather than revenge? He never explains how they differ. His insistence that Justice must be inflicted, albeit carefully? Because it must. He just knows.We must punish, not merely protect. We must never forgive, never forget, never let up.If you read the comments to the news stories on how Ohio seemingly botched the execution of Dennis McGuire last week, you'll see the hatred and vituperation: Who cares about that piece of shit? the commenters write. He raped and murdered. He should suffer.I said, when I wrote about the execution,If that's justice, I don't want any part of it.Blecker cares about that piece of shit. And still he wants that sort of justice, even when it's hard. That's no small thing, really. It's worthy of some respect whether you agree or not.
↧
Explaining why I am rooting so hard for "Amy" in Paroline
Oral argument in the fascinating Supreme Court case of Paroline v. United States now is just a couple of days away, and this new AP article provides effective background on the case while also helping to spotlight some reasons I...
↧
Why a Michigan 3rd Offense (Felony) DUI is not the end of the World
In Michigan, a third (3rd) offense drunk driving is a felony offense. There is no higher Michigan DUI charge. This means that whether you have 2 prior DUI convictions, or 7 DUI convictions, any DUI charge after your 2nd will...
↧
↧
Health Care Fraud Recoveries on the Rise
The United States Government recovered $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2012 and total of almost $39 billion in qui tam and non-qui tam false claims act cases since October 1, 1987. These recoveries are part of the Government’s focus on eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse and are in part a direct result of the use […]
↧
Everything that you wanted to Know about the HYTA Law in Michigan
In Michigan, the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, commonly known as HYTA, is covered by statute, MCL 762.11. The essence of HYTA is that it allows for dismissal of eligible criminal offenses committed by youthful offenders. This statute applies only to offenders that are age 17 to 20 years old. HYTA is not available for juvenile offenders; those under age 17. In Michigan, a person is considered an adult for their crimes at age 17 and beyond. The dismissal of a criminal offense pursuant to HYTA is tantamount to an expungement. The benefit of getting HYTA means that the offender avoids the stigma and label of a criminal conviction. Subject to some exceptions, HYTA is available for most felonies and misdemeanors. A person applying for a job or filling out an employment application would be able to exclude an offense dismissed pursuant to compliance with HYTA.
Key aspects of a HYTA case: Conviction is not entered and records are sealed!
A person who seeks HYTA is required to formally plead guilty to the offense or offenses which are being considered for a HYTA plea. However, once the court accepts someone on HYTA status, the court does not enter a judgment of conviction and the court and Michigan State Police records become closed to the public view. The records remain sealed unless the person violates his or her HYTA status.
A person who is awarded HYTA status may be incarcerated. This is usually not the case unless there are compelling or aggravating circumstances. HYTA usually entails a term of probation with whatever conditions that the court deems appropriate for the youthful offender. If the offender violates any of the terms of probation, the guilty plea may be abstracted as a conviction. Should this occur, the conviction becomes a public record and the offender faces punishment and possible incarceration up to the maximum period of time allowed for the particular offense. However, if the person complies with the terms of probation, the case is dismissed at the end of probation and the record remains sealed. A sealed record means that it is not accessible to public access or by any member of the public who makes inquiry at the court or to a law enforcement agency.
How does someone get HYTA status?
HYTA status is not guaranteed and may be accepted or rejected in the judge's discretion. HYTA is obtained by an attorney negotiating this favorable disposition with the prosecutor and petitioning the court to accept the same. Since HYTA may be rejected by the court, it is vital that an attorney be retained in order to gain the best advantage in subsequent criminal proceedings.
HYTA status may also mean the imposition of probation, random testing for alcohol and drugs, counseling and payment of restitution. Restitution may be ordered in cases involving damage to property (home invasion, malicious destruction of property) or economic crimes (larceny).
HYTA is not available for some crimes and traffic offenses
HYTA is available for most criminal offenses including felonies and misdemeanors. However, the HYTA statute lists various offenses which are not eligible for HYTA status as follows:
Traffic offenses, including Operating While Intoxicated
An offense which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison
Major controlled substance offenses
Most criminal sexual conduct crimes
Creative legal solutions to get HYTA for ineligible crimes and offenders
Ineligible offenses: Sometimes, we are called upon to defend a client that is charged with an offense that is not eligible for HYTA. In such a case, we may attempt to seek a plea bargain to have the prohibited HYTA offense amended to an offense which is compatible with a HYTA disposition.
Offenders over age 20: When an offender is over age 20, HYTA is not applicable. In rare situations, our attorneys have been able to have the occurrence date of the crime amended to an earlier date when the offender's age would be under age 21.
↧
Bill Introduced in Texas Gives Felons Successfully Completing Probation a Chance to Improve Their Record: Vetoed By Governor Perry
In Texas, state jail felons have the highest recidivism rates among all released inmates: over 33% of state jail felons will be convicted of a new crime after being released compared with 26% of regular prisoners. . Those familiar with Texas criminal law are well aware that our system is heavily based on the theory of negative incentives--commit a crime, and the government will punish you. The opposite idea, using positive incentives to reduce crime and reoffender rates, is seldom used, making a bill recently vetoed in Texas particularly important in the mission to reduce felon recidivism in Texas.
House Bill 1790 (HB 1790), introduced by Texas State Representative Oscar Longoria, proposed allowing state jail felons who have successfully completed probation to reduce the felony charge on their record to a Class A misdemeanor. In order to take advantage of HB 1790, the defendant would need to successfully meet all probation terms, and then petition the court to reduce their conviction seventy days prior to the end of their probation period. The defendant would be informed of the reduction incentive by their judge during sentencing. HB 1790 excluded state felons who have committed assaults, domestic violence or other "crimes against persons" from reducing their records under HB 1790.
Supporters had high hopes that HB 1790, which was backed by organizations such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation, would help alleviate overwhelming state jail populations, reduce the expense of prisoner healthcare and, most importantly, motivate defendants to successfully complete probation requirements--including paying full restitution to victims and their families. The incentive for felons: a life without a haunting felony record.
Unsurprisingly, HB 1790 proved to be popular in both the House and Senate, passing through the House of Representatives with a vote of 88 to 45. However, hopes for a chance at a felony-free record were at least temporarily ended on June 14, 2013 when Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoed the popular bill. In explaining Perry's veto of the bill, the governor's office stated that "[t]he intent of House Bill 1790 can already be achieved under current law. A mechanism already exists to prosecute a state jail felony as a Class A misdemeanor in circumstances where the prosecutor sees fit. Adding the option to reduce the conviction at the back end of a case will cause additional and unnecessary court procedures, reduce judicial efficiency, and add to the costs of our criminal justice system.". Marc Levin, Director of the Center for Effective Justice commented on the veto, "This legislation, modeled after an effective law in Utah, provides an important incentive for those on probation to successfully complete all of the terms of their supervision, including paying any restitution owed to a victim. Research has shown that such incentives result in a 46% increase in compliance with probation conditions, which benefits public safety, victims, taxpayers, and offenders...this bill [would] build on Texas' recent success in cost-effectively cutting crime."
With the popular support that HB 1790 attained in the House and Senate, Texans concerned with inmate rehabilitation, prison costs and public safety can hope that a similar bill will successfully be introduced and approved by the next Governor of Texas in the future.
↧
What Is Misdemeanor Assault?
In New Mexico, misdemeanor assault is when a person intentionally attempt to touch or threaten someone, including verbal harassment in an offensive or menacing way, without legal reason. The victim only has to allege they felt threatened by your words or actions for one to be charged with assault. For example, if you took a […]
↧
↧
What Is Simple Battery?
In New Mexico, simple battery is when a person intentionally offensively or angry manner touches another person without a legal reason. Most commonly, people are charged with battery after they hit or push someone in a fight. Sometimes a person is charged with a simple battery if they intentional touch another person in a sexually […]
↧
Ten-Year Prison Sentence Was a "Variance," Not a "Departure" Requiring Notice
United States v. Moore, Nos. 12-1644-cr(L), 12-1654-cr(CON) (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (Jacobs, Lohier, and Droney) (summary order), available hereMoore appealed his 120-month prison sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and related crimes. He argued that the district court committed plain error by upwardly departing from the Guidelines range without proper notice, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). He also challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable.The Circuit was not persuaded. First, the Court held that, though the district court alluded to a "departure" twice and never mentioned a "variance," the sentencing transcript made clear that the district court was imposing a non-Guidelines "variance," which required no advance notice. Indeed, the district court stated after sentencing that its references to a "departure" were mistaken, and that only a variance was intended.Second, the 120-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The defendant's history reflected multiple instances of gun possession and robberies, including a robbery in which guns were aimed at two victims, one an infant. Accordingly, the sentence was not "shockingly high," unsupportable as a matter of law, or beyond the bounds of discretion.
↧
What Are The Penalties For Drug Trafficking?
In New Mexico, drug trafficking penalties differ based on how many times you have been convicted of drug trafficking. A first time drug trafficking conviction is a second degree felony. A second degree felony carries a maximum sentence of three years incarceration and a $5000 fine. For subsequent drug trafficking charges, it will be considered […]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
