« Lots of sentencing news from Connecticut | Main | An overview of post-Booker world »

March 31, 2005

Contrasting affirmances of immigration offense sentences

Though I am no longer trying to track and report all the Booker circuit rulings, two contrasting affirmances of sentences in immigration cases from the Eleventh and Eighth Circuits caught my eye tonight.  The Eleventh Circuit in its published opinion in US v. Camacho-Ibarquen, No. 04-11155 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2005) (available here), carefully explores (and rejects) the defendant's arguments against application of 16-level guideline enhancement, and it thoughtfully discusses Booker and Shepard along the way.  But, in contrast, the Eighth Circuit in its unpublished opinion in US v. Villanueva-Martinez, No. 04-2925 (8th Cir. Mar. 30, 2005) (available here), summarily rejects the defendant's arguments against the same enhancement, and it does not confront the way the Booker remedy might impact the issues on appeal.

March 31, 2005 at 01:18 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Contrasting affirmances of immigration offense sentences:


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