U.S. v. Valadez-Valadez, No. 06-2341
Driving at a speed moderately below the speed limit does not, without more, constitute obstructing or impeding traffic. A conviction for for transporting illegal aliens is reversed and remanded pursuant to a claim of erroneous denial of a motion to suppress where an officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for violating a state law against impeding traffic, based on his driving about 10 m.p.h. below the speed limit on a highway. Read more...
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sex Offender Registration and Notification conviction vacated
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
U.S. v. Sanchez, No. 07-30578
Where, at the time of sentencing there is no guideline in effect for the particular offense of conviction, and the Sentencing Commission has promulgated a proposed guideline applicable to the offense of conviction, the district court's failure to consider the proposed guideline when sentencing the defendant may result in reversible plain error. The imposition of a 60-month sentence for defendant's failure to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is vacated and remanded where: 1) the court's failure to consider proposed guidelines that existed at the time before sentencing constituted plain error; and 2) defendant's right were affected since he could show that but for the misapplication of the Guidelines he could have received a lesser sentence. Read more...
U.S. v. Sanchez, No. 07-30578
Where, at the time of sentencing there is no guideline in effect for the particular offense of conviction, and the Sentencing Commission has promulgated a proposed guideline applicable to the offense of conviction, the district court's failure to consider the proposed guideline when sentencing the defendant may result in reversible plain error. The imposition of a 60-month sentence for defendant's failure to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is vacated and remanded where: 1) the court's failure to consider proposed guidelines that existed at the time before sentencing constituted plain error; and 2) defendant's right were affected since he could show that but for the misapplication of the Guidelines he could have received a lesser sentence. Read more...
the district court needed to review the state trial court record
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS
Ferguson v. Culliver, No. 07-13030
Denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas corpus petition is vacated and remanded where: 1) in the habeas context, the district court needed to review the state trial court record, rather than rely solely on the state appellate court's findings as to what the trial record contained; and 2) the absence of the trial record precluded the district court from conducting a meaningful review of the state court decision, even under the deferential standard imposed by the AEDPA. Read more...
Ferguson v. Culliver, No. 07-13030
Denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas corpus petition is vacated and remanded where: 1) in the habeas context, the district court needed to review the state trial court record, rather than rely solely on the state appellate court's findings as to what the trial record contained; and 2) the absence of the trial record precluded the district court from conducting a meaningful review of the state court decision, even under the deferential standard imposed by the AEDPA. Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)