Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Sixth Circuit Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Sixth Circuit Blog

Quick Summary of Day

ADVERTISEMENTS

AFPDs in our office are going to try to offer regular summaries of a day's opinions. We encourage everyone to check the opinions out---these summaries are really short and limited and do not cover all of the key points. They are offered only as a quick overview of recent decisions. We encourage you to post comments regarding these summaries, your review of the cases, opinion content, etc.

Here is yesterday's summary:

CHARLES WILLIAM JOHNSTON

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0033p-06.pdf

PUBLISHED

Defendant in a fraud case struck a plea agreement to pay $1 million restitution by a date certain.

Defendant failed to pay anything. Government moved to re-sentence the defendant, who had originally received a 25-month sentence and no joint and several liability for millions more, for wilful failure to pay.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the court sentenced the defendant to 51 months in prison and joint and several liability for $6.6 Million. This was all pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3614 (allows resentencing upon failure to pay restitution and/or a fine).

The Circuit Court affirmed, finding the evidence supported the ?wilfulness? determination.

*******

ERIC CURRY

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0084n-06.pdf

UNPUBLISHED

Crack re-sentencing.

District court declined to reduce the defendant?s sentence below the 75 months the defendant received at a post-Booker re-sentence (from another court).

The Circuit Court affirmed, saying that the district court recognized its discretion to lower the sentence, but was not required to do so, and although the opinion declining to exercise the discretion was curt, it was enough.

It should be noted that the SMR by probation recommended against a further reduction.

*******

JOSELIN CASTRO

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0085n-06.pdf

UNPUBLISHED?

The Court affirmed a denial of a motion to suppress even though the affidavit contained erroneous information because a de novo review of what was left after redaction was sufficient.

Full post as published by Sixth Circuit Blog on February 11, 2010 (boomark / email).