Unpublished Decisions
U.S. v. Blacknoll, 2010 WL 1474489 (4/14/10) (unpub'd) - The 10th indicates it would be okay to deny a safety valve reduction on the grounds that the defendant's many misrepresentations in the past made it unlikely the defendant's current description of his role in the offense was truthful and complete. The 10th suggests that perhaps a defendant cannot meet the safety-valve disclosure requirement by making statements after the commencement of the sentencing hearing.
U.S. v. Alicea, 2010 WL 1632903 (4/23/10) (unpub'd) - An officer's hearsay testimony that the credit card company "charged back" the merchants for purchases the defendant made with a fake credit card reliably established there were more than 10 victims of the defendant's offense.
U.S. v. Keller, 2010 WL 1444913 (4/13/10) (unpub'd) - The 10th upholds a variance, contrary to the probation office's recommendation, for a supervised release violation from 4-10 months to 2 years, because of the defendant's repeated violations, the insincerity of her expressed concern for her children and her "gaming" of the system
G.S. v. Holder, 2010 WL 1499931 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - To determine whether a state drug trafficking offense is an aggravated felony, the court should look to what the statutory maximum sentence would be under federal law, not what the federal guideline range maximum would be.
U.S. v. Howell, 2010 WL 1499587 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - The district court abused its discretion when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 movant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims where there was strong evidence someone had possessed firearms and attempted to manufacture meth at a certain location, but the evidence linking the movant to the location was "somewhat tenuous." The 10th did not detail what the ineffective assistance claims were.
Barrett v. Orman, 2010 WL 1499586 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - The prisoner stated a valid constitutional claim when he alleged the prison rejected his incoming mail without notice, a statement of reasons and an opportunity to be heard, in violation of his First Amendment and due process rights.
Klinginsmith v. Ledezma, 2010 WL 1531067 (4/19/10) (unpub'd) - The federal prisoner movant may have satisfied the "in custody" requirement by alleging that the unlawful revocation of his special parole with respect to a prior conviction increased his criminal history score with respect to the sentence he was currently serving. But he should have filed in the court of his conviction under § 2255, rather than under § 2241 in the court in the state where he was incarcerated.
Christensen v. Big Horn County Board of County Commissioners, 2010 WL 1627833 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - The requirement that a prisoner pay 20% of her/his monthly income towards the filing fee applies per case, not per prisoner, thus discouraging multiple filings.
U.S. v. Alicea, 2010 WL 1632903 (4/23/10) (unpub'd) - An officer's hearsay testimony that the credit card company "charged back" the merchants for purchases the defendant made with a fake credit card reliably established there were more than 10 victims of the defendant's offense.
U.S. v. Keller, 2010 WL 1444913 (4/13/10) (unpub'd) - The 10th upholds a variance, contrary to the probation office's recommendation, for a supervised release violation from 4-10 months to 2 years, because of the defendant's repeated violations, the insincerity of her expressed concern for her children and her "gaming" of the system
G.S. v. Holder, 2010 WL 1499931 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - To determine whether a state drug trafficking offense is an aggravated felony, the court should look to what the statutory maximum sentence would be under federal law, not what the federal guideline range maximum would be.
U.S. v. Howell, 2010 WL 1499587 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - The district court abused its discretion when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 movant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims where there was strong evidence someone had possessed firearms and attempted to manufacture meth at a certain location, but the evidence linking the movant to the location was "somewhat tenuous." The 10th did not detail what the ineffective assistance claims were.
Barrett v. Orman, 2010 WL 1499586 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - The prisoner stated a valid constitutional claim when he alleged the prison rejected his incoming mail without notice, a statement of reasons and an opportunity to be heard, in violation of his First Amendment and due process rights.
Klinginsmith v. Ledezma, 2010 WL 1531067 (4/19/10) (unpub'd) - The federal prisoner movant may have satisfied the "in custody" requirement by alleging that the unlawful revocation of his special parole with respect to a prior conviction increased his criminal history score with respect to the sentence he was currently serving. But he should have filed in the court of his conviction under § 2255, rather than under § 2241 in the court in the state where he was incarcerated.
Christensen v. Big Horn County Board of County Commissioners, 2010 WL 1627833 (4/15/10) (unpub'd) - The requirement that a prisoner pay 20% of her/his monthly income towards the filing fee applies per case, not per prisoner, thus discouraging multiple filings.
posted by Anonymous at 10:47 AM
<< Home