Related Research Articles
The United States courts of appeals or circuit courts are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system. The courts are divided into 13 circuits, and each hears appeals from the district courts within its borders, or in some instances from other designated federal courts and administrative agencies. Appeals from the courts of appeals are taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who "described the Court's decision as a 'Number 10 earthquake.'"
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), was a federal criminal prosecution filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles against X-Citement Video and its owner Rubin Gottesman. The charge was trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos featuring the underaged Traci Lords. Gottesman had been sentenced to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminals' sentences. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reporter's privilege in the United States, is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources." It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment or statutory right many jurisdictions have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.
David Brookman Smith, known professionally as D. Brooks Smith, is the Chief United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Thomas L. Ambro is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He began his judicial service in 2000.
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable. Applying this rule to the case at hand, it upheld a sentence of 36 months' probation imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy in the face of a recommended sentence of 30 to 37 months in prison.
Julie Elizabeth Carnes is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Gerard Edmund Lynch is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He was confirmed to that seat on September 17, 2009 after previously having been appointed in 2000 by President Bill Clinton to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Lynch was the first appeals-court judge nominated by President Barack Obama to win confirmation from the United States Senate.
Child pornography laws in the United States specify that child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to 20 years' imprisonment or fine of $5000. The Supreme Court of the United States has found child pornography to be "legally obscene", a term that refers to offensive or violent forms of pornography that have been declared to be outside the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 12. U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.
Acceptance of responsibility is a provision in the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines providing for a decrease by 2 or 3 levels in offenders' offense level for admitting guilt and otherwise demonstrating behavior consistent with acceptance of responsibility, such as ending criminal conduct and associations. It amounts to a sentence reduction of about 35%. The 3-level reduction is only available to defendants with an offense level of 16 or greater, and it requires a timely guilty plea. Federal plea agreements usually include a stipulation that the government will support granting the defendant the acceptance of responsibility reduction. The guideline states, in reference to the 2-level reduction:
United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision on release from prison.
The official victim enhancement is a 3- or 6-level increase under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that applies when a person knowingly commits a crime against a government official and is motivated by that person's status. The provision also states, "If the official victim is an exceptionally high-level official, such as the President or the Vice President of the United States, an upward departure may be warranted due to the potential disruption of the governmental function." There are many crimes against federal officials that do not require, as an element of the offense, that the offender know the status of the victim, but this enhancement does. The victimization of the government official need not be the offense of conviction; it is possible, for instance, for the defendant to be convicted of robbing a bank and to get the official victim enhancement for harming a uniformed police officer as he escapes. The assault on the officer is considered relevant conduct. In cases involving threats against the President of the United States, courts have applied the official victim enhancement, rejecting arguments that in order for it to apply, "the President actually [had] been harmed, or ... [knew] of the existence of the defendant's letter." There has been a circuit split in the federal appellate courts as to whether crimes against local government officials qualify for the official victim enhancement. 0.1% of federal cases involve the official victim enhancement.
Luis Felipe Restrepo, known commonly as L. Felipe Restrepo, is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, is a 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and asset forfeiture. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Frederick Banks, a Pittsburgh man, on numerous felony charges resulting from fraudulent schemes carried out over the Internet. The case takes its title, which has been singled out as memorable and included among lists of amusingly titled cases, from one of Banks' aliases, an electronic music group of which he was the sole regular member. He had filed the appeal under that name while representing himself.
References
- ↑ US v. Oliveras, 905 F. 2d 623 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1990
- ↑ "Simplification Draft Paper - Relevant Conduct and Real Offense Sentencing". Ussc.gov. Archived from the original on 2010-05-28. Retrieved 2010-06-21.