LATEST SUMMARIES
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PER CURIAM
US v. Hullette
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. McFadden
US v. Tingle
US v. Miranda
You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole
To view the full-text of cases you must
sign in to FindLaw.com.
LATEST SUMMARIES
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PER CURIAM
US v. Hullette, No. 07-3325
In a prosecution for possession of firearms by a convicted felon,
grant of the government's motion in limine to preclude the defense
of entrapment by estoppel is affirmed where: 1) a federally licensed
firearms dealer is not a government official whose representations
give rise to an entrapment by estoppel defense; and 2) even if the
dealer were a government agent, a report generated from the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) permitting the
dealer to "proceed" with a firearms sale is not the type of
statement giving rise to the entrapment by estoppel defense.
Read more...
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. McFadden, No. 08-1736
An order denying defendant's motion for reduction of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to
the U.S.S.G. is affirmed where, even with the benefit of Amendment
706, defendant was not entitled to a sentence reduction, as his
newly calculated guideline range would still be limited by U.S.S.G
section 5G1.1(a) and remain unchanged.
Read more...
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. Tingle, No. 08-1777
An order denying defendant's motion for reduction of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to
the U.S.S.G. is affirmed where defendant did not meet the
eligibility requirements for a sentence reduction under section
3582(c)(2), as he was a career offender.
Read more...
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. Miranda, No. 08-1887
An order denying defendant's motion for reduction of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to
the U.S.S.G. is affirmed where defendant was sentenced as a career
criminal, and thus ineligible for such a reduction.
Read more...