United States v. Tyrone Mitchell (3rd Cir. December 2019)

The Court held that the sentencing court committed plain and reversible error when it relied on the defendant’s “bare arrest record” in determining a sentence, as the sentencing court had only cited the Defendant’s “extensive criminal history” without adequately distinguishing between adjudications, convictions, and mere arrests. 

Continue reading

United States v. Ronald John Bankston, III (11th Cir. December 2019)

The Court held that selling body armor is not sufficient to warrant an enhancement for "using" body armor under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5, which enhances a defendant's offense level if the defendant used body armor though “active employment in a manner to protect the person from gunfire” or “as a means of bartering.” The Court held that the definition of bartering applies to trading goods without the use of money.

Continue reading

United States v. Steven Wang (9th Cir. December 2019)

The Court held that the sentencing court committed plain error by applying the general-fraud Guidelines under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 because the defendant’s mail fraud conviction also established a visa fraud offense specifically covered under U.S.S.G. § 2L2.1, the Guideline for visa fraud.

Continue reading

United States v. Annamalai Annamalai (11th Cir. September 2019)

Among other rulings on other issues, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction for bankruptcy fraud, holding that the income from his second religious temple, opened after the first temple filed a petition for bankruptcy and providing the same services as the first temple, did not constitute post-petition property of the first temple's estate since the temples otherwise operated as two separate entities and the government did not try to pierce the corporate veil.

Continue reading

United States v. Roger William Campbell II (9th Cir. September 2019)

The Court affirmed the district court's order sentencing the defendant to consecutive terms of imprisonment for violating his supervised release. Even though the district court had initially imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment and supervised release, the Guidelines allow a sentencing court to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences following the revocation of supervised release.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
Published by Pate, Johnson & Church
Contact Tom Church at tom@patejohnson.com with any comments, questions or feedback.

© 2019 The Federal Docket