Unpublished Decisions
U.S. v. Vaughan, 2013 WL 2398820 (6/4/13) (Col.) (unpub'd) - The Guidelines allow bank robbery convictions to be used as part of criminal history even if the robberies were part of the same scheme as the bank robberies involved in the instant case. This is because robbery is not groupable. See USSG § 3D1.2(d) & n. 6).
Bailey v. Kerns, 2013 WL 2435350 (6/5/13) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The plaintiff prisoner was unable to show the jail personnel's horrendous non-treatment of her broken arm was pursuant to, or the result of, any sheriff policy or custom. Because of how the jail mistreated her, her arm ultimately had to be amputated.
U.S. v. Penry, 2013 WL 2378577 (6/3/13) (Wyo.) (unpub'd) - The defendant could not obtain the return of his computer that had child porn on it, even though the government never formally forfeited it. He had no right to the computer unless it had been illegally seized and the seizure was legal.
U.S. v. Lindsay, 2103 WL 2436632 (6/6/13) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - The 10th reviewed the defendant's claim as though it had been preserved, because his complaint that the d. ct. failed to consider a factor could not have been raised until after the d. ct. made its § 3582(c)(2) decision and the d. ct. made its decision without having a hearing during which the defendant could have objected. But the claim fails. In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, a d. ct. doesn't have to make specific findings regarding every § 3553(a) factor, as long as it states its reasons for denying the motion. The fact that the defendant was already subject to a state life-without-parole sentence did not override the good reasons the d. ct. relied on to deny the motion. It does matter how long the fed folks get to keep him in their prisons before handing him over to the state.
Bailey v. Kerns, 2013 WL 2435350 (6/5/13) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The plaintiff prisoner was unable to show the jail personnel's horrendous non-treatment of her broken arm was pursuant to, or the result of, any sheriff policy or custom. Because of how the jail mistreated her, her arm ultimately had to be amputated.
U.S. v. Penry, 2013 WL 2378577 (6/3/13) (Wyo.) (unpub'd) - The defendant could not obtain the return of his computer that had child porn on it, even though the government never formally forfeited it. He had no right to the computer unless it had been illegally seized and the seizure was legal.
U.S. v. Lindsay, 2103 WL 2436632 (6/6/13) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - The 10th reviewed the defendant's claim as though it had been preserved, because his complaint that the d. ct. failed to consider a factor could not have been raised until after the d. ct. made its § 3582(c)(2) decision and the d. ct. made its decision without having a hearing during which the defendant could have objected. But the claim fails. In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, a d. ct. doesn't have to make specific findings regarding every § 3553(a) factor, as long as it states its reasons for denying the motion. The fact that the defendant was already subject to a state life-without-parole sentence did not override the good reasons the d. ct. relied on to deny the motion. It does matter how long the fed folks get to keep him in their prisons before handing him over to the state.
posted by Anonymous at 11:42 AM
<< Home