Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Sentencing Law and Policy
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
(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
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Sentencing Law and PolicySixth Circuit provides some intriguing advice during plain error sentence reversal
By Douglas A. Berman
ADVERTISEMENTS
A sixth Circuit panel does some interesting work this morning in US v. Wilson, No. 08-1963 (6th Cir. July 19, 2010) (available here), which gets started this way:
Lashawn Wilson (?Wilson?) pleaded guilty to a single count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment. She now brings this sentencing appeal, arguing that the district court committed plain error by selecting her sentence based on the clearly erroneous premise that she had stolen one thousand money orders and five hundred cashier's checks. We agree, and we therefore vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing.
Though any plain error sentence reversal is worth noting, footnote one of the Wilson majority opinion (per Judge Boggs) and the concurrence (per Judge Martin with Judge Cole joining) are what really caught my attention...continue to full postFull post as published by Sentencing Law and Policy on July 19, 2010 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Specialty Lamp International
Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
Stock Market Losses
alleging bad financial advice and conflicts of interest.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Sentence Reversed Based on Plain Error
Has the Fifth Circuit's Approach to Plain Error Review Been Too Permissive
No Plain Error in Application of Sentence Requested by Defendant
Suspended Sentence Not a "Sentence Imposed" for §2L1.2 Purposes, But Troubling Plain Error Analysis
Extensive Discussion of Plain Error Review of Downward Variance









