POSITIVE CHANGES FOR INMATES ON THE HORIZON UNDER PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP
On November 4, 2008, Democratic candidate Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. Further, the Democratic party extended its majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. What does this mean for criminal defendant sin the federal system?
NEW SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
It is believed that President-elect Obama may have to fill as many as two potential vacancies in the United States Supreme Court, with Justices Ginsburg and Souter rumored to be near retirement. Both of these Justices fall on the liberal side of the Court. As Obama, himself more liberal than conservative, would likely nominate liberal justices to replace Ginsburg and Souter, the philosophical/ideological
composition of the Court is unlikely to change. As such, the Court is likely to continue its assault on the federal Sentencing Guidelines, which has been led by conservative Justices Scalia and Thomas.
WHAT NEW CHANGES IS PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA LIKELY TO SUPPORT?
NLPA notes that an examination of President-elect Obama’s personal views may give insight as to the types of judges he may appoint, as well as the direction that he may ask Congress to take in criminal justice matters. Obama was involved in getting legislation passed to require mandatory taping of police interrogations and enact some death penalty and racial profiling reforms while an Illinois legislature. Obama has complained about the racial disparity in crack-powder cocaine sentences and once advocated abolishing mandatory minimums. Obama has stated that federal mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent offenses has been a mistake at both the state and federal levels, explaining that the harsh sentencing guidelines do not take into account the potential for rehabilitation for young people who are involved in non-violent crimes.
President-elect Obama’s course of action is already beginning to become more clear as he appoints members of his cabinet. For example, Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) has been appointed as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Emanuel, while he was in Congress, voted for the pro-medical marijuana Hinschey Amendment which is designed to permit physicians to prescribe marijuana to cancer patients. Note, this law was vigorously opposed by the Bush Administration.
In this regard, one area that could be an early indicator of the Obama Administration’s drug reform policies is the ongoing DEA raids against California medical marijuana providers. President-elect Obama vowed during his campaign to halt those raids and it is expected that this position of the new Administration clearly indicates that the Obama Administration intends to take actions to reform many of the unfair and inappropriate drug laws that were passed by the Bush Administration.
Erich Holder, Jr. who has been appointed as the new U.S. Attorney General under Obama in a recent interview stated about mandatory minimum sentences: “We ought to look at the statistics and see, are we putting in prison, are we using our limited prison space for the kind of people that we want to have there? Are the sentences commensurate with the kind of conduct that puts people in jail for these mandatory minimum sentences? I think those are the kinds of questions that we ought to ask. I hope that we will ask those questions and then look into mandatory minimum sentence changes with an open mind”.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PAROLE AND INCREASE IN GOOD TIME
Another issue that may arise is the status of The Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2007 (H.R. 623). This Act is stuck in committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, where it has died each of the last four congressional sessions. That bill was drafted with the intent of amending the federal criminal code to allow an individual to file a petition for expungement of a record of conviction for certain nonviolent criminal offenses. Much confusion has likely resulted because of the similar titles of the respective bills. Unfortunately, this bill has been sitting motionless before the House Judiciary Committee since early 2007.
The proposed bill specifies five criteria that individuals must meet in order to qualify for the Second Chance Act. They are: (1) no convictions for a violent offense and no conviction for a nonviolent offense other than the one they are trying to expunge; (2) must have fulfilled all requirements of their sentence; (3) must have remained free from drug or alcohol dependency for at least one year and have been rehabilitated to the court's satisfaction, if that is part of their sentence; (4) must have obtained a high school diploma or GED; and (5) must have completed at least one year of community service, as determined by the court.
This was the bill to get excited about. Qualifying federal inmates would be able to apply for expungement upon completion of all sentencing requirements, some additional community service, and an extended period of clean drug testing. After obtaining the expungement, those federal ex-offenders would not have to report the expunged offense, even if directly asked by a prospective employer, excluding law-enforcement positions. The only record of the expunged offense would be kept by the justice department, and examined only in the event that the individual re-offends or applies for a license to purchase or possess a firearm. This would open up a vast array of employment opportunities that were previously closed to those convicted of federal crimes, because of the lack of an expungement procedure. Ex-offenders could work in banks, in schools, hospitals, and virtually any field other than law enforcement. In other words, they could make a legitimate honest living, and not have to resort to crime to make their way in life.
This bill also has provisions that would provide for reinstating parole and more than triple good time credits for federal inmates as well as special early-release provisions for elderly federal offenders.
The passage of the Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act would be a great advancement for many federal inmates. It is not too late to write your congressmen and request their support for the Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act. Without such support, it is unlikely that the bill will pass. NLPA notes that the most recent Congress, also composed of a Democratic majority, failed to pass the bill. As such, without significant outcry from the American public, it seems unlikely that the current Democratically controlled Congress will pass the bill.
UNITED STATES HAS RECORD NUMBER INCARCERATED
United States Sentencing Commission is looking into ways of reducing prison population by focusing on sentencing alternatives.
There are more than two million people are in prison in the U.S. , including more than 200,000 in the federal system alone, both being record highs. Prisons are responsible for some of the largest increases in state spending (which we all realize in today’s economic conditions - must be changed!). According to National Association of State Budget Officers, states spent $44 BILLION in tax revenue on corrections last year, compared with $10.6 Billion in 1987!
In recent years both the Commission and Congress have been moving progressively toward such a movement. In 2007 the sentencing guidelines with respect to crack-cocaine were amended and then held to be retroactive over the objections made by the Justice Department. Then earlier this year in 2008 we learned of the passing of the Second Chance Act which focuses on helping inmates re-enter society successfully. Over the summer the Commission also hosted a symposium on alternatives to prison.
While we realize that the modifications to the crack-cocaine sentencing guidelines was a “long time coming” and well worthwhile for thousands of inmates incarcerated for such charges throughout the country, we have to ask, what about the rest?
Further, we support and appreciate the efforts put into passing the Second Chance Act but, again, with this Act only applying to inmates reaching their release date or, those who have already been released, we must ask again - what about the rest?
With the population continuing to climb even after these changes have been made, it clearly demonstrates that the problem is not yet “fixed”. Of course, there may never come a day that the problem actually IS fixed. NLPA reported largely in its Second Quarter newsletter earlier this year about the hopes of yet another Act passing that potentially would impact the rest of the still-growing number of prisoners - the Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act. Word of this Act have been spread throughout the prison systems for years now yet, the Act has yet to be passed. Wit h the elections having been held in November, 2008 we are hopeful that a new Government will see fit to pass this Act. NLPA will continue to monitor this in hopes of good news to come. For more information about the number of prisoners in the United States as compared to other countries as well as past year’s statistics, please refer to the chart on Page 7.
CHALLENGING THE GOVERNMENT IN CASES OF SENTENCING MANIPULATION
NLPA has been at the forefront of challenging improper sentencing practices by the United States government. It has always been NLPA’s belief that sentences should be based upon the improper conduct of a defendant, not upon acts of the government meant solely to increase a defendant’s sentencing range. NLPA has persistently and vigorously challenged sentencing manipulation and sentencing entrapment in an effort to obtain fair sentences for those who have been convicted in federal court.
Sentencing entrapment relates to an individual’s predisposition and focuses on the propensity of the defendant to commit his actual crime as opposed to some lesser crime. Joan Malmud, Defending a Sentence: The Judicial Establishment of Sentencing Entrapment and Sentencing Manipulation Defenses, 145 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1359, 1372 (1997). Federal courts have defined sentencing entrapment in the context of a drug offense as “outrageous official conduct which overcomes the will of an individual predisposed only to dealing in small quantities for the purpose of increasing the amount of drugs and the resulting sentence of the entrapped defendant.” Biggs v. United States, 3 Fed. App’x 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Montoy, 62 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1995)(defined sentence manipulation as government conduct that “improperly enlarged the scope or scale of the crime. ”); United States v. Staufer, 38 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1994)(“[s]entencing entrapment or sentence factor manipulation occurs when a defendant, although predisposed to commit a minor or lessor offense, is entrapped in committing a greater offense subject to greater punishment.”); United States v. Sanchez, 138 F.3d 1410, 1414 (11th Cir. 1998)(a claim of sentence manipulation “points to the opportunities that the sentencing guidelines pose for prosecutors to gerrymander the district court's sentencing options and thus, defendant's sentences.”).
In United States v. Shepherd, 857 F.Supp. 105 (D.D.C. 1994), the defendant Shepherd was approached by undercover DEA agents, and a cocaine sale was negotiated. However, instead of being satisfied with what would have been a legitimate and applaudable cocaine bust, the agents induced the defendant to convert the cocaine into crack, thus subjecting Shepherd to a mandatory minimum sentence, and almost doubling the sentence under the Guidelines. The court did not take kindly to such actions, and determined it “was specifically designed to manipulate the sentence received by undermining the defendant’s due process rights. This purpose and practice must be viewed as outrageous.” Id. at 111. What is most remarkable about this case is that the court did not merely depart from the Guideline range, but decided to apply “the statutory minimum and guideline provisions that would have been applied absent the manipulative conduct of the agent in this case.” Id. Numerous other circuits have agreed that the proper remedy for such manipulation is not departure, but a removal of those quantity determinations from the sentencing arena. The Ninth Circuit has vacated sentences for sentence manipulation. See, e.g., United States v. Naranjo, 52 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Connell, 960 F.2d 191 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Barth, 990 F.2d 422, 425 (8th Cir. 1993). United States v. Fowler, 990 F.2d 1005, 1007 (7th Cir. 1993) (stating that where there is an “overly zealous pursuit of a reverse sting to the point of being virtually a giveaway deal that it conceivably could result in the exclusion of an entire transaction from an offender’s sentencing calculation.”)
Contrarily, sentencing manipulation was not found to have occurred in United States v. Nunez, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23233 (2d Cir. 2008). In Nunez, the defendant had committed drug or robbery crimes in the past. Further, the defendant did not shrink from the prospect of acquiring eleven kilograms: he jumped at the CI’s suggestion that the Colombian drug dealer might have fifteen or even twenty kilograms of cocaine on him. Similarly, in United States v. Jaca-Nazario, 521 F.3d 50 , the court found that sentencing manipulation had not occurred. In Jaca-Nazario, the court stated that emotional pressure is one possible basis for a finding of entrapment at trial, and therefore presumably also could be an adequate basis in a sentencing entrapment setting as well. Unfortunately for the defendant in Jaca-Nazario, such pressure was found to have been absent in this case, despite the fact that a government informant pressured the defendant to act by stating that the informant would lose her head if the cocaine was not delivered. The relationship between the defendant and the informant was merely a business relationship, meaning that the requisite emotional pressure was not brought to bare. In United States v. Montanez, 105 F.3d 36, 37 (1st Cir. 1997), emotional pressure was found to have been present resulting in sentencing manipulation where the defendant had a romantic relationship with the informant whom was playing on the defendant’s sympathies.
NLPA urges all criminal defendants to examine whether sentencing manipulation has occurred in their cases. While the government will argue that all Guideline enhancements, such as drug amount, are supported by the relevant conduct language of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, such is not always true. Often, defendants are coerced into greater criminal activity at the urging of the government. If such is the case, criminal defendants may be subject to a lesser sentence than calculated by the United States government. Given the harsh penalties given under the Guidelines, along with the technical nature of a sentencing manipulation argument, NLPA would gladly assist in the preparation of such arguments. As with many arguments regarding novel and creative defenses to criminal charges, NLPA has been at the fore in advocating for criminal defendants. If you fear that you have been subjected to sentencing manipulation, or need assistance regarding any criminal charge, contact NLPA immediately, and we will help you in your fight for justice!
CRACK AND POWDER
(Daily Press) In less than six months, hundreds of Virginia inmates have had their sentences reduced as prosecutors, public defenders and judges work to lessen the disparity between prison terms for crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine.
It's about time the federal justice system caught up with Virginia's system, in which crack offenses are treated equally with those for cocaine.
It's just a start, really. The federal sentence for a person convicted of dealing 50 grams of crack cocaine has been reduced by two years, to 8-to-10 years. Dealing the same amount of powder cocaine will get a person 21 to 27 months in prison.
There's more work to be done to make the sentences equal — either increasing the sentences for cocaine dealers or continuing to decrease it for crack dealers.
The steeper penalty for crack is a matter of criminalizing those who deal that drug more than those who deal powder cocaine. Sharpening the disparity is the fact that those convicted of dealing crack cocaine are more likely to be black than those convicted of dealing powder cocaine.
Of the federal inmates considered for a sentence reduction across the nation, 85.6 percent are black, 92.9 percent are male, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.Critics of the new sentencing guidelines have played into Americans' fears. U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in February urged Congress to prevent the retroactive reduction in sentencing because "1,600 convicted crack dealers, many of them violent gang members, will be eligible for immediate release into communities nationwide."
That's more a statement of association than fact. And it would be a stretch to compare crack dealers to cocaine dealers to see which is more often associated with violent crime.
Crimes for violence are additional and separate charges from selling an illegal substance. Violence is a threat to public safety; the drug market is a matter of black-market economics.
Dealing drugs is illegal and duly punishable, but associating Drug A with a greater public danger than Drug B is discriminatory when the chemical narcotic is identical in both, but the dealers are of different races.
Some will argue that reduced sentencing will encourage people to deal crack, or discourage them less. The punishment is only one solution. Another solution is taking apart the incentives that make dealing crack a lucrative enterprise. People wouldn't do it, and wouldn't kill threats to their business interests, if there was little or no money in it.
Unraveling that puzzle is worth a serious community conversation. In the meantime, undoing this unequal treatment of equal crimes is the right move.
CRITICIZING GUIDELINES, JUDGE GIVES SENTENCES 25 YEARS LESS THAN RECOMMENDED MINIMUM
(Mark Fass, New York Law Journal) Two brothers facing 30 years to life under federal sentencing guidelines for their roles in a securities fraud scheme received five-year sentences Thursday August 14, 2008. In departing downward from the minimum recommended sentence by 25 years, Eastern District of New York Judge Frederic Block issued a 21-page opinion -- the longest sentencing memorandum of the senior judge's career -- highly critical of the guidelines' "fetish with absolute arithmetic."
"[W]e now have an advisory guidelines regime where, as reflected by this case, any officer or director of virtually any public corporation who has committed securities fraud will be confronted with a guidelines calculation either calling for or approaching lifetime imprisonment," Block wrote in People v. Parris, 05-CR-636.
"While I acknowledge that the Guidelines 'reflect Congress' judgment as to the appropriate national policy for such crimes,' ... this does not mean that the Sentencing Guidelines for white-collar crimes should be a black stain on common sense."
The defendants, Lennox Parris, 38, and Lester Parris, 35, served as co-directors of Queench Inc., a Jericho, N.Y.-based company whose primary projects included bottled water, also named Queench, marketed to minorities.
As Queench grew, the Parrises found themselves in the society and business pages for making sizable philanthropic contributions and hiring high-profile board members, including New York Jets running back Curtis Martin and modeling executive Bill Ford. The brothers also were executive producers of the 2000 film "Turn it Up."
The Parrises' fortunes turned in January 2005, when the Eastern District U.S. Attorney's Office charged them with running a scheme to inflate the value of the stock. The allegations centered on a series of press releases that misrepresented the company's success in landing distribution contracts with 7-Eleven, Time Warner and the U.S. military. Queench's apparent good fortunes, as trumpeted in the releases, had led to an immediate run on its stock, which nearly doubled over the course of three press releases. The fraud resulted in either $2.56 million or $4.9 million in profits for the Parrises, a distinction the court later deemed academic.
The case went to trial in early 2007, creating tabloid headlines when actor Danny Glover made a surprise appearance in the courtroom audience late one afternoon. But in a short time, Glover stormed out of the courthouse, claiming he had been lured by the Parrises to 225 Cadman Plaza East, not knowing it was a federal courthouse, on the premise that the brothers wanted to discuss a movie project. A jury found the brothers guilty of six counts of securities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering. The pre-sentence report assessed 42 points for each brother, based on such factors as the amount lost (more than $2.5 million), the number of victims (more than 250), the use of "sophisticated means" and the defendants' positions as directors of a publicly held company. Under the guidelines -- now merely advisory since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in United States v. Booker -- the brothers faced 30 years to life. Judge Block decided the guidelines did not "provide realistic guidance," and opted to reach "out to the parties for their thoughts," according to Thursday's memorandum.
NATIONWIDE COMPARISON
That "collaborative" effort resulted in a chart of security fraud convictions nationwide, including the amount of investors' losses and the lengths of defendants' sentences demonstrating a link between the amount of money lost and the length of time imposed.
"Those who ... were responsible for enormous losses were sentenced to double-digit terms of imprisonment ... those whose losses were less than $100 million were generally sentenced to single-digit terms," Block wrote. At the top of the chart, in terms of both dollar amounts and sentence lengths, were the most well-known defendants: Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom (over $100 million, 14 years); Jeffrey Skilling of Enron (over $1 billion, 24 years); and Sanjay Kumar of Computer Associates ($2.2 billion, 12 years.) At the bottom were lesser-known securities fraud defendants with smaller damages and shorter sentences: Neil Formisano ($9.8 million, 78 months); Michael Smirlock ($12.6 million, 48 months); and Christopher Betts ($1.3 million, 366 days).
Block sentenced the Parris brothers to 60 months each, citing the 2007 2nd Circuit decision United States v. Wills, 476 F.3d 103, which called for "national consistency" in sentencing. "[T]he nature of their crimes -- while clearly deserving of the punishment which I have meted out -- is simply not of the same character and magnitude as the securities-fraud prosecutions of those who have been responsible for wreaking unimaginable losses on major corporations and, in particular, on their companies' employees and stockholders, many of whom lost their pensions and were financially ruined," Block wrote.
"Yet the sentences entailed in those cases, such as Enron, WorldCom and Computer Associates, were each less, and in some cases markedly less, than the lowest end of the guidelines range in this case." Assistant U.S. Attorneys Taryn A. Merkl, Jonathan E. Green and Laura D. Mantell prosecuted the case. Merkl and Green did not return calls for comment.
Randy Scott Zelin of Pryor & Mandelup in Westbury, N.Y., represented Lennox Parris. Douglas T. Burns represented Lester Parris. Zelin predicted Thursday that the decision will have "major repercussions in the legal community," and praised both the judge for his diligence and the prosecution for its recognition of the shortcomings of the guidelines. "I've never seen a judge so concerned about disparate sentences," Zelin said.
CASES YOU CAN USE
US v. Miller - No. 07-30481 (11-7-08). Defendant was getting to the end of his sentence and so was transferred by BOP to a state (Idaho) county jail, where he was on work release. He finally got out, and subsequently was arrested and found with drugs. He argued that his time in the county jail should count toward his supervised release term, in which case he had served his term, and could not be revoked. Alas, unlike in US v. Sullivan, 504 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2007),w here the defendant had been serving a state sentence when placed on work relesae, the defendant here was still in BOP “custody”, and his transfer was to a federal pre-release center, and under 3642(c) counts as confinement.
8th Circuit overturns sentence in meth case - A federal appeals court in Little Rock, Ark. Says a woman convicted in a methamphetamine smuggling ring should serve less prison time, as a judge used the wrong guidelines when sentencing her. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis ruled that Jennifer Corey Spikes should have been sentenced in a lower prison time range after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute the drug. However, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Eisele used the higher penalty range when he sentenced Spikes, noting a previous conviction. Eisele sentenced Spikes to more than 13 years in prison, which was below the higher sentencing guidelines used for her conviction. However, the appeals court found that Eisele offered no clear indication that he would have imposed the same sentence if he agreed with Spikes’ initial objection of the sentence scheme.
U.S. v. Whitley, No. 83-5093 US Court of Appeals 4th Circuit, 734 F.2d 994; 1984 U.S. App, Lexis 22451, December 9, 1983, Argued, May 15, 1984, Decided. The due process rights of a man convicted for bank robbery were violated when, after his original guilty plea, he was sentenced to only 20 years, but after retrial, he was sentenced to 50 years without any explanation justifying increased punishment.
U.S. v. White, 366 F.3d 291 (4th Cir 2004) If a Government representative orally promised a defendant that he could conditionally plead, the defendant would be entitled to relief despite his attorney’s failure to preserve the right in the written plea agreement. Proof of the government’s refusal to abide by such an oral promise would clearly constitute evidence of government overreaching or fraud in the inducement, admissible without running afoul of the parol evidence rule.
U.S. v. Farley, USDC ND GA. It is very rare to see the 8th Amendment applied in favor of the defendant in non-death case. However, Judge Beverly Martin, of the ND of GA in t his case did just that. The court held that:
...a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for Mr. Farley, under the specific facts of his case, is so grossly disproportionate to his crime as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...[T]he court finds it relevant that Mr. Farley committed no sexual act with a child, and that he was a first time offender with no evidence in the record that he is anything other than a low risk for repeating his crime. While Mr. Farley’s crime is deplorable, it is far less grave than crimes committed by perpetual offenders that remain a demonstrated threat to the public, or crimes that result in loss of or emotional devastation to a person’s life.
US v. Howe, No. 07-1404 (3d Cir. 9/18/08). In this appeal we review the sentence imposed on a defendant who was convicted of two counts of wire fraud. The sentence consisted of two years’ probation (including three months’ home confinement), despite an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 18 to 24 months’ imprisonment. The District Court imposed no find and no forfeiture (other than the special assessment of $200.00). The Government appeals from the District Court’s judgment of sentence. We will affirm.
Arrington v. Daniels, No. 06-35855 9th Cir. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it promulgated a regulation categorically excluding from eligibility for early release under a particular statute, those whose “current offense is a felony...[t]hat involved the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon or explosives[.]”.
NLPA CONTINUES A TREND OF EXCELLENCE -A RECAP ON OUR SUCCESSFUL CASES
for the THIRD quarter of 2008
During the third quarter NLPA enjoyed sharing in its victories with many of our clients. Below is out an outline of the victories during the third quarter that we felt deserved an “honorable mention”.
Mitchell, S - NLPA assisted counsel for Mr. Mitchell in preparing for his sentencing. His case was heard in the USDC ED of MO (Case No. 4:07-CR-00184-6). NLPA was successful in helping counsel to obtain the mandatory minimum sentence for Mr. Mitchell which was Mr. Mitchell’s hope in view of other information that could have been used against him to increase his PSI recommendation.
Beard, T - NLPA assisted counsel in the preparation of an appeal (6th CCA #06-1737). The case involved conspiracy to distribute controlled substance, heroin, possession with intent to distribute heroin, crack-cocaine, use of firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and felon in possession of a firearm charges. Mr. Beard’s appeal was granted in part and his case remanded for a re-sentencing to be held.
Joseph, J - NLPA assisted Mr. Joseph’s counsel with the preparation of his direct appeal (11th CCA #07-15845) involving possession of narcotics charges. The court vacated and remanded the case for a re-sentencing.
Coleman, J - NLPA assisted counsel in the case of Mr. Coleman in the preparation of a petition for writ of certiorari. (7th CCA #06-3806) which was granted by the court.
Cannaday, S - NLPA as part of its pretrial assistance assisted counsel for Mr. Cannaday in the preparation of a motion for bond pending trial (USDC ED WI #2:08-cr-00172-2). The court granted bond to Mr. Cannaday.
Mugweni, C - NLPA assisted counsel for Mr. Mugweni in the USDC ND of TX (Case No. 3:07-cr-00159-1) with sentencing research. The PSI Report in the case was recommending a guideline range of 135 to 168 months. At the sentencing hearing the court imposed a sentence of only 66 months - saving Mr. Mugweni more than EIGHT YEARS in prison!
Fenner, P- NLPA assisted counsel Charles Murray in the case of Mr. Fenner (USDC MD PA, Case No. 1:05-CR-00167-1) with sentencing research. The PSI in the case recommended a sentence of 27-33 months. At the sentencing the court imposed a 21 month sentence - saving Mr. Fenner up to a year in prison.
INTERESTED IN HIRING NLPA?
Do you have pressing deadlines? - Give us a due date and you can relax.
Have a brief due? - Call us for a free preliminary consultation so we can determine a cost estimate. NLPA can provide anything from a research memorandum to a file-ready brief - whichever you may need.
If you’re considering hiring someone to assist with your criminal proceedings, NLPA offers realistic fees that may suit you in your pursuit of finding top-notch yet affordable legal research & consulting assistance. We believe you will find our fees to be extremely competitive compared to other legal research firms in the country. We also have several alternative options for paying our fees.
NLPA can accept payment via cashier’s check or money order through the mail.
We also can accept credit/debit card payments over the telephone as well as electronic check (check by phone) payments over the telephone.
For most services provided NLPA also offers payment plans as well. With a minimum down payment you could soon be financing your legal fees.
Therefore, if you are interested in discussing the financing options available to you for your specific matter, please contact us. NLPA assists
in virtually every stage of criminal proceedings from pretrial to post-conviction and also assists in immigration matters. For additional information on the services offered by
National Legal Professional Associates please contact our offices.
DON’T FORGET!
NLPA also can now assist you in finding financing for your legal defense needs. We are pleased to spotlight Lenders Financial Group (LFG) once again as a way in which EVERYONE can afford the legal team they deserve! LFG can assist in a number of different loan programs. LFG also assists in areas other than legal defense. Please take a moment to visit their website at: www.lendersfinancialgroup.com to obtain more information about the numerous services they offer.
This newsletter is designed to Introduce you to NLPA. As NLPA is not a law firm, professional services are only provided to licensed counsel in all areas that involve the practice of law. NLPA has created this publication to provide you with authoritative and accurate information concerning the subject matter covered. However, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. This publication is not meant to be a substitute for legal or other professional advice, which NLPA is not rendering herein.
Copyright © 2008 National Legal Professional Associates
PRISON POPULATION STATISTICS
About NLPA
NLPA is a research and consulting firm, owned and staffed by attorneys, and dedicated to the professional mission of providing counsel, research, and related work product to members of the Bar. Our ownership structure includes attorneys licensed to practice before many local, state, and federal courts; however, NLPA is not a law firm and provides no “front line” legal services. On the other hand, we are much more than your typical paralegal service as our work is prepared by attorneys. Our sole purpose is to provide research and consulting assistance by lawyers, for lawyers . . . and their clients. With cutting-edge computer research capabilities, an experienced and top quality staff, and more than sixteen years’ experience, NLPA is well-positioned to provide the types of assistance members of the Bar need. You are important to us and we hope we can commence and maintain a long-term relationship with you. Please know that we are here to assist in all your needs. If you would like to know more about the services we offer, please contact us at:
National Legal Professional Associates
Margaret A. Robinson Professional Advocacy Center
11331 Grooms Road, Suite 1000
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Tel.: (513) 247-0082 * Fax: (513) 247-9580
E-Mail: contactus@nlpa.com * Website: www.NLPA.com
NLPA: WE LISTEN, WE CARE, WE GET RESULTS !
National Legal Professional Associates
11331 Grooms Road, Suite 1000
Cincinnati, OH 45242
|
