<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION &#187; federal Appeals Attorney</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/category/federal-appeals-attorney/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog</link>
	<description>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:44:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>PSR OBJECTIONS OVER PLAIN ERROR DOCTRINE</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/07/24/psr-objections-over-plain-error-doctrine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/07/24/psr-objections-over-plain-error-doctrine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bank robbery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pre-Sentence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Criminal Defense Attorneys Must File Objections to Pre-Sentence Report in Federal Criminal Cases to Protect Appellate Rights

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The United States Congress, with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, established the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. These “Guidelines” not only guide but require U.S. District Court judges to consider all the sentencing factors Congress set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before imposing sentence in criminal cases. The U.S. Supreme Court in a series of cases has made it abundantly clear that the Guidelines are not mandatory but rather advisory in nature—a guide for the judge to utilize in crafting the appropriate sentence.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/07/24/psr-objections-over-plain-error-doctrine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WHEN NOT GUILTY DOES NOT MEAN INNOCENCE</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/07/13/when-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/07/13/when-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bench trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[embezzlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unjust Conviction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=448</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Monetary Damages Under § 2513, for Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment, Requires Showing of ‘Truly Innocent,’ Even After Acquittal

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Robert E. Graham, a West Virginia native, was indicted by a Federal grand jury for 39 criminal offenses. It is not uncommon for the United States Government, armed with an arsenal of prosecutorial resources through the U.S. Justice Department, to overcharge criminal defendants. It is a tactic designed to force criminal defendants into unwanted guilty pleas or to overwhelm juries with so much documentary evidence that jurors will almost automatically vote “guilty” on the flimsy premise that the defendant must have done something wrong to face so many charges involving so much “evidence,” even if there is no factual basis for the evidence.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/07/13/when-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR JUVENILES</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/05/25/supreme-court-addresses-life-without-parole-for-juveniles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/05/25/supreme-court-addresses-life-without-parole-for-juveniles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 08:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[juvenile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life imprisonment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LWOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-homicide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robbery]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are Life Sentences Appropriate for Juvenile Offenders?

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The United States Supreme Court finally addressed for the first time a long debated issue: whether juveniles can be sentenced to life without parole (“LWOP”), a sentence normally reserved for the very worst offenders. In its decision finding that LWOP for juvenile offenders was unconstitutional, the Court pointed out that only six states in this country do not have LWOP for juveniles. Fortunately, the State of Texas is one of those states. The Legislature last year eliminated the penalty provision from its sentencing practices.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/05/25/supreme-court-addresses-life-without-parole-for-juveniles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defense Lawyers Must Prepare for Federal Sentencing</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/21/sentencing-departures-since-booker/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/21/sentencing-departures-since-booker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[downward departure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defense Lawyers Must Prepare for Federal Sentencing 

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The United States Supreme Court in 1996 held that federal district court judges had discretion to depart from the recommendations of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. See: Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 91, 98 (1996).

Some of these judges – many of whom were placed on the federal bench during the 12-year presidential reign of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush because they shared the politically conservative views of judges like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas – viewed Koon as a judicial license to enhance criminal sentences as part of the Republicans’ “war on crime.” See: United States v. Weisser, 417 F.3d 336, 346 (2nd Cir. 2005) [reversal of a district court judge’s sentence based upon multiple enhancements including a 13-level increase in the offense level and a three-level increase in the criminal history level].]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/21/sentencing-departures-since-booker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HEARSAY EVIDENCE, OBJECTIONS</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/26/hearsay-evidence-objections/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/26/hearsay-evidence-objections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hearsay Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Objections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=74</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Critical Need For Timely And Specific Objections During A Criminal Trial

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There is rarely a time when a defense attorney does not find the need to object during a criminal trial because the prosecution either attempts to introduce inadmissible evidence or engages in some questionable conduct concerning the proffer of evidence.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/26/hearsay-evidence-objections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE JUDICIAL WARS INVOKED BY CRACK SENTENCING</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/25/the-judicial-wars-invoked-by-crack-sentencing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/25/the-judicial-wars-invoked-by-crack-sentencing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=72</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Supreme Court: Federal Judges Have Discretion at Sentencing

By Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a federal district court judge must consider each of the factors prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing an appropriate criminal sentence. The § 3553 factors are:

“Nature and circumstances of the offense” and defendant’s “history and characteristics.” Id., at (a)(1). Under U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence the sentencing judge is limited to those facts (1) “reflected in the jury verdict,” (2) admitted by the defendant, (3) contained in defendant’s guilty plea, or (4) reflect prior convictions. See: Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) [facts affecting sentence must be found by a jury]. 
The general purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act. Id., at (a)(2). The purposes of this Act are to have a sentence “(A) reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (d) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner …” 
The types of sentences available. Id., at (a)(3). 
The policy statements of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Id., at (a)(5). 
The need to avoid sentencing disparities between defendants convicted of similar conduct. Id., at (a)(6). 
The need to provide restitution to victims. Id., at (a)(7). 
The applicable sentence range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Id., at (a)(4). ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/25/the-judicial-wars-invoked-by-crack-sentencing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FEDERAL SENTENCING: DISCRETION MAKES A COMBACK</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/08/28/federal-sentencing-discretion-makes-a-comback/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/08/28/federal-sentencing-discretion-makes-a-comback/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=50</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following Booker, Kimbrough, Rita and Gall; District Courts Exercising Power to Sentence as Deemed Appropriate, Considering Case-Specific Factors, § 3553(a)

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Senior Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Before 1984, criminal sentencing in federal courts was heavily criticized because of the disparate sentences imposed for similar conduct and because of the uncertainty as to the length of time offenders would actually serve in prison. But Congress changed all that with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Act was designed to produce a more even-handed determinate sentencing scheme. To accomplish this legislative objective, the Act imposed an absolute duty on federal district court judges to consider each of the seven sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), required federal judges to accept the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, and abolished the federal parole system as well. The end result of the Act, however, quickly proved to be even more draconian than hodgepodge sentencing practices it had replaced. Federal prison sentences grew longer because of the mandatory Guidelines, and because of the abolition of parole, longer stays in federal prison became the order of the day.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/08/28/federal-sentencing-discretion-makes-a-comback/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

