« More on residency restrictions in Ohio | Main | Stanford event on "Mandatory Minimums and the Crack/Powder Sentencing Disparity" »
September 5, 2007
Eighth Circuit almost upholds below guideline sentence
The Eighth Circuit provides an interesting discussion of variances today in US v. Chettiar, No. 06-3432 (8th Cir. Sept. 5, 2007) (available here). (Also interesting is the defendant's full name: Nagappan Mylappan Chettiar.) The panel in Chettiar ultimately rejects the Government's various arguments against the imposition of a below-guideline sentence, but ultimately vacates and remands for resentencing because it found "it impossible given the present record to conduct a meaningful review of whether the district court gave significant weight to any improper or irrelevant factor."
September 5, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e54ed7d9088833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Eighth Circuit almost upholds below guideline sentence:
Comments
I knew this guy, his workers, and the restaurant. i have no blinding legal insights to add, but it was disturbing to see that laudatory comments about him as an employer were not at all contextualized -- paying for someone's dental care doesn;t entitle you to work them 12 hours a day while you become a millionaire, and the workers who found him generous were not in a position to compare his supposed "generosity" to conditions mandated by actual U.S. law
It is troubling that the original "sentence" contradicted the law supposedly imposed on him; and that the workers (many of whom overstayed visas) were housed in a crummy county jail with no Tamil translators while he, a sophisticated English speaker, enjoyed a homestay. Not to mention a lawyer from one of the top firms in the Twin Cities.
Posted by: melinda | Sep 8, 2007 11:06:30 PM
I knew this guy, his workers, and the restaurant. i have no blinding legal insights to add, but it was disturbing to see that laudatory comments about him as an employer were not at all contextualized -- paying for someone's dental care doesn;t entitle you to work them 12 hours a day while you become a millionaire, and the workers who found him generous were not in a position to compare his supposed "generosity" to conditions mandated by actual U.S. law
It is troubling that the original "sentence" contradicted the law supposedly imposed on him; and that the workers (many of whom overstayed visas) were housed in a crummy county jail with no Tamil translators while he, a sophisticated English speaker, enjoyed a homestay. Not to mention a lawyer from one of the top firms in the Twin Cities.
Posted by: melinda | Sep 8, 2007 11:07:16 PM
I knew this guy, his workers, and the restaurant. i have no blinding legal insights to add, but it was disturbing to see that laudatory comments about him as an employer were not at all contextualized -- paying for someone's dental care doesn;t entitle you to work them 12 hours a day while you become a millionaire, and the workers who found him generous were not in a position to compare his supposed "generosity" to conditions mandated by actual U.S. law
It is troubling that the original "sentence" contradicted the law supposedly imposed on him; and that the workers (many of whom overstayed visas) were housed in a crummy county jail with no Tamil translators while he, a sophisticated English speaker, enjoyed a homestay. Not to mention a lawyer from one of the top firms in the Twin Cities.
Posted by: melinda | Sep 8, 2007 11:07:20 PM
I knew this guy, his workers, and the restaurant. i have no blinding legal insights to add, but it was disturbing to see that laudatory comments about him as an employer were not at all contextualized -- paying for someone's dental care doesn;t entitle you to work them 12 hours a day while you become a millionaire, and the workers who found him generous were not in a position to compare his supposed "generosity" to conditions mandated by actual U.S. law
It is troubling that the original "sentence" contradicted the law supposedly imposed on him; and that the workers (many of whom overstayed visas) were housed in a crummy county jail with no Tamil translators while he, a sophisticated English speaker, enjoyed a homestay. Not to mention a lawyer from one of the top firms in the Twin Cities.
Posted by: melinda | Sep 8, 2007 11:07:24 PM
I knew this guy, his workers, and the restaurant. i have no blinding legal insights to add, but it was disturbing to see that laudatory comments about him as an employer were not at all contextualized -- paying for someone's dental care doesn;t entitle you to work them 12 hours a day while you become a millionaire, and the workers who found him generous were not in a position to compare his supposed "generosity" to conditions mandated by actual U.S. law
It is troubling that the original "sentence" contradicted the law supposedly imposed on him; and that the workers (many of whom overstayed visas) were housed in a crummy county jail with no Tamil translators while he, a sophisticated English speaker, enjoyed a homestay. Not to mention a lawyer from one of the top firms in the Twin Cities.
Posted by: melinda | Sep 8, 2007 11:07:29 PM
