1.09.2013

Third Circuit Declines to Weigh in on Split Re Whether Adjustment under Guideline § 3E1.1(b) Is Mandatory under Certain Circumstances


Per U.S. v. Castro, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 69214 (3d Cir. 2013):


Castro also contends that his 60–month sentence under Count Nine is procedurally unreasonable because the District Court erred in refusing to reduce his offense level under § 3E1.1(b). In his view, the additional adjustment is mandatory if the government moves for it and the other requirements of the provision are met. Whether that is so is a question we have not addressed but which has divided other circuits. Compare United States v. Williamson, 598 F.3d 227 (5th Cir.2010) (district court has authority to determine whether conditions for one level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 have been satisfied), with United States v. Mount, 675 F.3d 1052, 1055–57 (7th Cir.2012) (application of additional one level decrease in defendant's offense level under § 3E1.1 is mandatory). We decline to address that question, however, because it is precluded by Castro's appellate waiver and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver on this point.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Visit Aspen Publishers today! Free Shipping!