Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    United States v. Camilo, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but vacated his sentence. It remanded the case for resentencing based on two recent developments: 1) the probation office changed its policy for computing drug quantities for mandatory minimum sentences, and 2) a Second Circuit case held that mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1) only apply to conduct resulting in a conviction under that statute. The court agreed with the parties that these developments merited further consideration at a new sentencing hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Camilo, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    28 views5 pages
    The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but vacated his sentence. It remanded the case for resentencing based on two recent developments: 1) the probation office changed its policy for computing drug quantities for mandatory minimum sentences, and 2) a Second Circuit case held that mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1) only apply to conduct resulting in a conviction under that statute. The court agreed with the parties that these developments merited further consideration at a new sentencing hearing.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-08-08 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 94-1099

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but vacated his sentence. It remanded the case for resentencing based on two recent developments: 1) the probation office changed its policy for computing drug quantities for mandatory minimum sentences, and 2) a Second Circuit case held that mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1) only apply to conduct resulting in a conviction under that statute. The court agreed with the parties that these developments merited further consideration at a new sentencing hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    28 views5 pages

    United States v. Camilo, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but vacated his sentence. It remanded the case for resentencing based on two recent developments: 1) the probation office changed its policy for computing drug quantities for mandatory minimum sentences, and 2) a Second Circuit case held that mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1) only apply to conduct resulting in a conviction under that statute. The court agreed with the parties that these developments merited further consideration at a new sentencing hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 5

    USCA1 Opinion

    August 8, 1994

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    _________________________
    No. 94-1099
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Appellee,
    v.
    BLAS CAMILO,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    ------------------------APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________
    _________________________
    Before
    Torruella, Selya, and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
    ______________
    _________________________
    Daniel S. Tarlow, with whom Richard D. Glovsky and
    _________________
    __________________
    & Associates were on brief, for appellant.

    Glovsky
    _______

    ____________
    Jean B. Weld, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
    _____________
    Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, was on brief, for the
    ______________
    United States.
    _________________________

    _________________________

    Per Curiam.
    Per Curiam.
    __________
    appeal

    and discern

    We have carefully reviewed

    no

    breach by

    the

    agreement between it and the defendant.


    that

    the district court violated

    government of

    no cognizable

    basis

    for

    the

    plea

    We likewise find no hint

    the representations it made to

    the defendant at the change-of-plea hearing.


    is

    the record on

    defendant's

    Consequently, there
    request

    that

    he

    be

    permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.


    Defendant's
    the imposition of

    remaining assignments of

    sentence.

    The situation in

    clouded by two recent developments.


    Office's

    policy in

    connection

    error pertain to
    this respect

    is

    For one thing, the Probation

    with a

    matter

    material to

    the

    computation of

    drug quantity for purposes

    minimum sentences has changed

    of imposing mandatory

    significantly.

    For another thing,

    the Second Circuit decided United States v. Darmand, 3 F.3d 1578,


    ________________________
    1581

    (2d Cir.

    1993)

    (holding that

    Guidelines, which require a


    conduct in
    sentences

    setting a
    of 21

    which actually

    it

    sentence, the statutory

    U.S.C.

    841(b)(1) apply

    result[s] in

    parties

    mandatory minimum

    only to

    a conviction under

    agreed at

    the conduct

    that statute").

    a matter on which we take

    may have substantial implications for

    of defendant's sentence.

    [Sentencing]

    sentencing court to consider similar

    If this case correctly states the law


    no view

    "[u]nlike the

    the duration

    Under these unusual circumstances, the

    oral argument

    that these

    developments merit

    further consideration; and that, in the interests of justice, the


    sentence
    sentencing

    previously

    imposed

    hearing convened.

    should

    be

    We agree.

    expunged,

    and

    new

    We, therefore, vacate

    the defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing.1


    The
    defendant's
    conviction
    is
    affirmed.
    _______________________________________________
    defendant's sentence

    is

    vacated.

    The case

    is

    remanded

    The
    ___

    for

    __________________________________

    ___________________________

    resentencing.
    _____________

    ____________________

    1We envision that a full new sentencing hearing will be held


    at which the court can consider not only the applicability of any
    mandatory minimum sentence, but also, inter alia, the reliability
    _____ ____
    of
    the evidence proffered by the parties and the proper
    computation of defendant's criminal history score.
    3

    You might also like