<?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; appeals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/tag/appeals/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>JUDICIAL WAR OVER CRACK SENTENCING COMES TO AN END</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/30/judicial-war-over-crack-sentencing-comes-to-an-end/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/30/judicial-war-over-crack-sentencing-comes-to-an-end/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack/Powder Cocaine Ratio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal drugs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Moore and Spears: District Courts have Discretion to Reject the 100:1 Crack/Powder Cocaine Ratio

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

Last October we posted a blog entitled “The Judicial Wars Invoked by Crack Sentencing” (Oct. 24, 2008). The blog focused on a judicial tiff between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of James Eric Moore. We are pleased to report that the Supreme Court has finally put this issue to bed in two cases this Term.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/30/judicial-war-over-crack-sentencing-comes-to-an-end/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</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>
		<item>
		<title>JUSTICE DENIED TO RAMOS AND COMPEAN BY A FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULING</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/07/30/justice-denied-to-ramos-and-compean-by-a-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/07/30/justice-denied-to-ramos-and-compean-by-a-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aldrete-Davila]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramos and Compean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smuggling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JUSTICE DENIED TO RAMOS AND COMPEAN BY A FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULING

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John T. Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

Fabens, Texas is located thirty miles southeast of El Paso just across the Rio Grande from Mexico. 95 percent of the people living in the town of 8,000 are poor and Hispanic. It’s a young town – the median age is 24 years compared to the median Texas age of 32. The average household income is $18,000 annually compared to $43,000 for the rest of Texas. In a nutshell, it’s a “dusty, little Border town” that stands as open invitation for major Mexican drug traffickers like Oswaldo Aldrete-Davila.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/07/30/justice-denied-to-ramos-and-compean-by-a-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

