Sentencing Guidelines Archives – The Federal Docket

United States v. Michael Bourquin (6th Cir. July 2020)

The Sixth Circuit vacated a defendant's sentence based on insufficient evidence to support the district court's application of the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2A6.1(b)(4), which applies when the offense a substantial expenditure of funds to...otherwise respond to the offense. The government had not presented any specific accounting of its expenses in responding to the offense, nor had it distinguished its expenses as "substantial" as opposed to "typical."

United States v. Michael Martinez (11th Cir. July 2020)

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a sentencing guideline enhancement for possessing a firearm under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because the evidence showed that the defendant planned on selling the firearm to purchase drugs he intended to distribute.

United States v. Mitchell Stein (11th Cir. July 2020)

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's sentence, holding that the district court properly estimated the loss amount based on specific, circumstantial evidence of causation, namely that the defendant's investors relied on the defendant's fraudulent representations, and that the court did not err in rejecting the defendant's intervening causation theory. The Court also held that the defendant's claims on remand before the district court where limited by the scope fo the appellate court's mandate on remand and did not fall under any of the three exceptions.

United States v. Calvin McReynolds (6th Cir. July 2020)

The Sixth Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence for drug conspiracy and remanded it to the sentencing court after the court held the defendant accountable for a higher drug quantity than the jury did at trial, which the defendant argued violated his Sixth Amendment claim. The court held that the sentencing court did not adequately explain its reasoning, so it could not review the constitutionality of the defendant's claim.

United States v. Tony Denson (11th Cir. June 2020)

The district court is not required to hold a hearing prior to reducing a defendant's sentence under the First Step Act's retroactive penalties for crack-cocaine.