« Interesting US Sentencing Commission transition | Main | More waiting: still no Booker and Fanfan »

January 11, 2005

Predicting the unpredictable

Despite my prior false predictions of the coming of Booker and Fanfan, there is now some historical precedent for thinking the decision is imminent.  The last major challenge to the federal guidelines' constitutionality in Mistretta v. US was argued on October 5, 1988 and decided January 18, 1989.  So, even if we do not get Booker and Fanfan today or tomorrow, history suggests the decision should be coming soon.

Rather than make bold predictions, I will simply note that, in addition to Booker and Fanfan, it is possible we will see this week opinions in Roper v. Simmons, the juvenile death penalty case, and in Shepard v. US, the criminal history case.  Then again, it is also possible we are due for more waiting.

While we wait, here is a list of a few recent "gearing up" posts:

Additonal posts of note and other background materials on Blakely and Booker and Fanfan can also be found on my Blakely Basics page.  And a wealth of additional information can be accessed through the various Booker/Fanfan and Blakely page links in the right side-bar.

January 11, 2005 at 08:01 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d83438f87e53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Predicting the unpredictable:

Comments

10th Cir. dealing with Blakely issue:

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2005/01/03-5169.htm

"Mr. Sharbutt's enhancement claim misses the point. As explained hereafter, it is clear Blakely, like Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), does not "apply to sentencing factors that increase a defendant's guideline range but do not increase the statutory maximum." United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1265 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166 (2002).

Addresses criminal history as well:

"With regard to the use of prior convictions to enhance a sentence, the Supreme Court, in deciding Blakely, unequivocally restated the proposition announced in Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at 2536 (emphasis added). Applying this proposition, we have pointed out that a defendant with three prior violent felony convictions who is subject to a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act may not successfully challenge that sentence under Apprendi. See United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 586-87 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 986 (2001). Blakely does not affect this holding."

Posted by: steve | Jan 11, 2005 10:14:53 AM

Attn:Mrs. Paula Haddad,
Dear Madam,Sedy

I am Bright Mensah,an Attorney at law, and the Personal lawyer to
Engineer Kenneth Haddad,who worked with Shell International of Ghana,
Hereinafter shall be referred to as my client.

On the 21st of April,2003,my client was involved in an auto crash along
Kumasi-Accra expressway togaaaether with his entire family while returning
home from an easter holiday which they had gone to Takoradi. Since
then,I have made several inquiries to to locate any of my
client?s extended relatives and this has also proved unsuccessful. I am
contacting you to assist in claiming the sum of US$6.8 million in cash,and
some Gold which the deceased deposited
with a Security Company in here for safekeeping.

The Security Company in has issued me a notice to provide the next of
kin of my late client or have the deposited consignment declared as an
"Abandoned Property" through the laid down legal procedures within one
Month. Since I have been unsuccessful in locating the relatives for over
one year now,I therefore,seek your consent to present you as the next
of kin of the deceased since you have the same last name so that the
proceed of this deposit valued at US$6.8 million in cash and the Gold can
be released to you, and I and you can share the money at an agreed
proportion.

You will be required to open a non-resident Bank account where you will
pay in the money when it is released to you by the Security Company.
Upon your acceptance to this proposal,the information of the Security
Company will be sent to you so that you can establish contact with them
and inform them of your readiness to come and claim the deposit with
them. Every secret information relating to the deposit will be given to
you which you shall use to identify yourself as the next of kin of my
late client.

Please contact me by email: as soon as you
receive this mail for more clarifications.

Sincerely Yours,
Julius Peter (Esq)

Posted by: julius peter | Mar 29, 2005 7:56:11 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB