Federal Judiciary

United States v. Hernandez, No. 89-CR-229 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y. March 27, 2009)

Hernandez was highlighted for me in an email I received.  The substance of the re-sentencing is not nearly as interesting and perplexing as the process by which it came to be.  I don't understand it how it could have happened.  Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Hernandez was sentenced (likely) in late 1991 to 405 months imprisonment.  On December 3, 1993 the Second Circuit vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court had not made findings as to the defendant's role in the offenses and did not set forth a sufficient basis for applying a four level enhancement of his leadership role.

Fast forward fifteen years.  Yes, fifteen years.  Hernandez is resentenced to the same amount of time.  What happened in those intervening fifteen years?  How could this have slipped through the cracks?  Why was no one ringing an alarm bell?  What happened to defense counsel?  To the defendant?  To the U.S. Attorney's Office?  To U.S. Probation?  To the court?