ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Tenth 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
(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
: Tenth Circuit BlogFive-month Variance Affirmed
By Shari Allison
ADVERTISEMENTS
US v. Duarte-Hurtado, No. 08-2021, 2008 WL 4417197 (10th Cir. 10/1/08)(unpublished): Clearly this was a hard-fought case at every level, but, rejecting the defendant's arguments that a lower sentence was warranted, the Tenth affirms the five-month variance to 36 months (from 41) for a reentry defendant. The district court did not commit procedural error because the court thoroughly discussed the requested bases for downward departure (mental capacity and family circumstances) and weighed the 3553(a) factors. It was ok for the district court to address the issue of fast-track disparity and conclude that to impose a sentence at the same level as a defendant who accepted a fast-track plea would be inappropriate because it would fail to distinguish between those who took the deal and those who didn't...continue to full postFull post as published by Tenth Circuit Blog on October 03, 2008 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Folding Soccer Goals Recalled
20-Month Old Child Found Strangled to Death
Richard Mellon Scaife
Billionaire divorce lawsuit ends in a $725,000 a month settlement.
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.

Valdes: No reasons for extraordinary variance
Zoning Variance May Not Be Limited To The Term of Ownership of the Applicant
MD Court of Special Appeals Finds No RLUIPA Violation in Denial of Variance for Church Sign







