*1 906 v. Neuschafer. Demosthenes, Warden 89-259.
No. grant would White denied. Justice Certiorari C. A. 9th Cir. certiorari. A. 10th Cir. v. C. States. Duncan United
No. 88-7294. Certiorari denied. White, dissenting.
Justice 3663(a) § 18 C. of U. S. interpretation the This case involves may order a de- that a court (1982 V), provides which ed., Supp. any “to vic- make restitution that to under title fendant convicted read Ibid. case, the Tenth Circuit In this tim of such offense.” 3663(a) the term does not broadly: §in as used “offense” the term acts for which only those judge conside[r] to sentencing a “restrict guilty.” the had, pleaded or for which defendant was conviction (1989). contrast, has Circuit, by 1532, 1536 The Sixth 2d 870 F. natural holding ‘[a] of ‘offense’ that a narrow definition “adopted the defendant require would that language this of construction which he was of the offense for only to victims make restitution (1986) Mounts, 125, 127 793 F. 2d States v. convicted.’” United omitted). a writ of certio- (citations petition the for grant I would to resolve this conflict. in rari order 9th Cer Doe v. United States. C. A. Cir. No. 88-7388. White, and Jus- Brennan, Justice denied. Justice tiorari would certiorari. grant Blackmun tice Taylor A. 5th Cir. C. States. United No. 88-7503. v. denied. Certiorari peti- of the the denial respecting Stevens of Justice
Opinion writ of certiorari. tion for is whether a petition by certiorari presented this question
The find- after Sentencing the Guidelines may disregard court district accounts history inadequately criminal score a defendant’s ing that the in- adjust for the could instead when court for conduct past or more history category one the criminal by increasing adequacy (1989), a panel F. 2d 513 Lopez, States v. 871 United In levels. this the Fifth Circuit characterized Appeals for the of of Court of the concerning appropriateness question “a significant issue as id., it in the 514, and answered Guidelines,” at the from departure case a dif- however, in earlier, petitioner’s days Two negative. that to a answer different given same court had of the panel ferent