« "Have Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparities Increased in an Advisory Guidelines Regime? Evidence from Booker" | Main | Gearing up for Paroline with a short "Child Pornography Restitution Update" »

November 22, 2013

Two notable Sixth Circuit rejections of notable sentencing appeals by notable defendants

While I was distracted by teaching responsibilities, the Sixth Circuit yesterday handed down two notable (and lengthy) opinions rejecting two distinct defendants' intriguing claims concerning two distinct sentencing outcomes.  The first paragraphs of each opinion highlights why both cases are worthy of full reads:

US v. Volkman, No. 12-3212 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2013) (available here):

When a doctor first enters the practice of medicine, he or she swears to abide by a prime directive of the profession: “First, do no harm.”  Paul Volkman breached this sacrosanct tenet when he prescribed narcotics to addicts and individuals with physical, mental, and psychological frailties.  A federal jury looked at Volkman’s actions and found him guilty of breaking several laws, chief among them the law prohibiting the unlawful distribution of controlled substances.  After receiving the jury’s verdict, the district court sentenced Volkman to four consecutive terms of life imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a number of less-lengthy terms.

Volkman now appeals, contending that several errors arose throughout the course of his trial and sentencing.  We disagree, and we AFFIRM Volkman’s convictions and sentence.

US v. Marshall, No. 12-3805 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2013) (available here):

Dylan Marshall pled guilty to receiving child pornography over a period of 5 years, from the time he was 15 un til he was 20.  The district court varied downward from the guideline range and sentenced him to 5 years in prison — the mandatory minimum sentence for the offense — expressing its concerns with the perceived harshness of that sentence as it did so.  Marshall has a rare physiological condition called Human Growth Hormone Deficiency, which he believes entitles him to the Eighth Amendment protections accorded to juveniles. But despite his condition, Marshall was an adult at the time of the offense. We therefore affirm his sentence.

November 22, 2013 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2019b017b8bf8970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Two notable Sixth Circuit rejections of notable sentencing appeals by notable defendants:

Comments

One has to wonder where this defense went in Volkman.

http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/4731-21

The biggest losers in this case? The 100 million chronic pain patients in the US. Thank the lawyer thug if doctors are deterred from treating any. Direct action groups should kneecap the prosecutors and judges. Then, doctors should refuse them pain medication. See how these lawyers like what they are doing to others.

The resistance to these tyrannical oppressors should begin with a list, a boycott list. All service and product providers should shun these internal traitors.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 23, 2013 12:09:31 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