Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Perez, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views6 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the sentence of defendant Alina Perez and remanded the case for further consideration by the district court. The appeals court recently clarified that a sentencing court may depart downward from the career offender category if it finds the category inaccurately reflects the defendant's actual criminal history. Given this, and uncertainty over whether the district court understood the full scope of its departure authority, the appeals court vacated the sentence so the district court could re-evaluate Perez's sentence in light of the clarified departure standard.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-05-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 95-2195

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the sentence of defendant Alina Perez and remanded the case for further consideration by the district court. The appeals court recently clarified that a sentencing court may depart downward from the career offender category if it finds the category inaccurately reflects the defendant's actual criminal history. Given this, and uncertainty over whether the district court understood the full scope of its departure authority, the appeals court vacated the sentence so the district court could re-evaluate Perez's sentence in light of the clarified departure standard.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views6 pages

    United States v. Perez, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the sentence of defendant Alina Perez and remanded the case for further consideration by the district court. The appeals court recently clarified that a sentencing court may depart downward from the career offender category if it finds the category inaccurately reflects the defendant's actual criminal history. Given this, and uncertainty over whether the district court understood the full scope of its departure authority, the appeals court vacated the sentence so the district court could re-evaluate Perez's sentence in light of the clarified departure standard.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    USCA1 Opinion

    May 13, 1996


    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________

    No. 95-2195

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    ALINA PEREZ,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]


    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge,


    ___________
    Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Lenore Glaser on brief for appellant.


    _____________
    Donald K. Stern, United
    _______________

    States Attorney, and

    Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

    Michael J. Pelg
    ________________

    ____________________

    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________

    that

    sentencing

    In view

    court

    of our recent

    "may

    invoke

    opinion clarifying

    4A1.3

    to

    depart

    downward from

    that

    the

    the career

    category

    actual criminal

    offender category if

    inaccurately

    history,"

    reflects

    it concludes

    the

    defendant's

    United States v. Lindia, No. 95________________________

    2200, slip op. at 21 (1st Cir. April 18, 1996), together with

    our

    uncertainty

    whether

    the

    district

    court

    made

    discretionary decision not to

    depart or, instead, viewed its

    authority as

    than Lindia allows,


    ______

    more restricted

    the sentence and remand for further consideration.

    Vacated and remanded.


    ____________________

    Loc. R. 27.1.

    we vacate

    -3-

    You might also like