United States v. Louis Guglielmi

limited be it intended subsection language in existing previously words, majority In other (a)(2). related two of these a construction adopts them puts statutory provisions hand, other theOn another. one flict with referring to a 3565(a)(2)as treating section maximum

statutorily available 3565(a) as of section last sentence renders minimum referring to a an- with one consistent provisions

the two

other. instead opinion, sum, majority according statutory words

interpreting addition- meaning, reads in plain

to their them- words evident

al limitation statu- related construe It fails selves. consist- they will so that tory provisions to consid- another, it fails one ent with whole, there- as a of the Act context er the di- specific superfluous rendering man- Sentencing Commission

rective state- (or policy guidelines separate dating (and su- probation ments) for revocation release).

pervised America, STATES

UNITED

Plaintiff-Appellee, GUGLIELMI,

Louis

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-6809. Appeals, Circuit.

Fourth

Argued Dec. 1990. April

Decided Mass., Cambridge, Dershowitz, Alan M. Ma- Bender, & Bender (Harold J.

argued sentence, by troubled regarding the Eiger, Na- cerns N.C., B. Charlotte, Victoria tus, the sentences Eiger, the district court’s order Dershowitz, Dershowitz & Z. than the consecutively by the fact that brief), run for defen- City, on P.C., New York films, by ordering more might, simply FBI dant-appellant. even further. the sentence have increased Ashcraft, Atty., Char- U.S. J. Thomas Nevertheless, barred held ourselves we lotte, N.C., plaintiff-appellee. for proportionality conducting a review from decision in by our earlier the sentence ERVIN, Judge, and Before Chief Rhodes, WILKINSON, MURNAGHAN denied, Cir.1985), 476 U.S. cert. Judges. Circuit (1986). L.Ed.2d 545 106 S.Ct. MURNAGHAN, Judge: Circuit rehearing banc in en petitions After for time, of certiorari are called this Court and writ we For a third denied, extremely sub- were Supreme of an imposition review flowing from a conviction the district court on a motion with filed stantial pre- obscenity crimes or reduce sentence multiple May counts 1988 to correct sentencing federal Procedure of Criminal dating the advent of under Federal Rule (b). review necessitates a 35(a) Such the benefit of a guidelines.1 Without the limitations awaiting govern- most careful examination hearing and without appellate court, a federal places the law response, ment’s discretion the wide power order, to check court’s denied the motion. four-paragraph in mat- courts federal district justifi- accorded to very two brief The order contained sentencing. first, ters of this court in cations for the denial: already ruled that I had convicted, Guglielmi was Appellant Louis Eighth be disturbed should not Dis- States trial in the United jury after a second, and, contrary grounds Amendment District of for the Western trict Court movant, the court to the assertions of Carolina, violating of five counts North very crimes to be seri- obscenity considered abetting aiding and by U.S.C. § “victims,” those their who ous because commerce of transportation in interstate films, compelled might be the obscene films, counts of violat- parallel five obscene sexual crimes. to commit by using causing ing 18 U.S.C. § carriage carrier used a common denial of the appeal from On commerce, and films in interstate 35(a) motion, portion the Rule we affirmed by violating 18 U.S.C. one count legali- as to the court’s order of the district transportation conspiring to commit sentence, citing Guglielmi I. ty of the on October He was sentenced counts. Guglielmi, imprisonment years’ to a total of 25 9, 1989) (4th Cir., (unpub- Slip Op. at 4 June judge.2 (“Gu- (table)] opinion) F.2d 60 lished [877 35(b) II”). the Rule But as to original judg glielmi Guglielmi appealed the district court’s portion, we found that ment, subsequently affirmed which was indicated that the denying the motion Guglielmi, this Court. United itself foreclosed Cir.1987), denied, had either deemed cert. 819 F.2d 451 or had al- exercising from 1019,108 98 L.Ed.2d 679 S.Ct. 484 U.S. to enter considerations I"). There, however, impermissible lowed (1988) (“Guglielmi discretionary calculus. into the time our con first expressed sentence, five-year statutory fixing maximum each of enhancement 1. In the absence statutory sentencing guidelines fixing five-year maximum pair, have the federal eight count, ordering from fourteen all but conspiracy fixed incarceration at 2X1.1, 2G3.1, 3D1.2(d), transportation §§ months. U.S.S.G. paired conspiracy and first 1.4(a). 1.3(b), addition, 3D 3D consecutively. In fines run counts to $35,000. totalling were 2. The district court arrived transportation years by pairing counts and degrading, ob- conduct; particularly permis concern over the latter As to instant as those in the materials scene a court factors those sibility non vel harms to to various linked been passing may consider Attorney (citing society individuals allusion viewed Pornography, on Commission sexually General’s or sexually explicit theory that Justice, Report Final Department US. behav criminal may induce material violent was a (1986)); lengthy a sentence that pale of rationales beyond ior as either Guglielmi had deterrent; that and proper an ab or anti-obscenity statutes known acceptance of remorse not demonstrated inability to Our discretion. juration any make failed to responsibility and had brief court’s ascertain, district from the $35,000 fine de- his significant payment on was perspectives order, the two than $1.1 of more spite apparent assets moment, either ofwas no intended million. Gugliel remand. warranted interpretation 8-10. Crit Slip arguments under ad- Op. taking the II, 88-7656 No. After mi half, dis- proper was and a decision a month that remand for ical to visement Guglielmi’s that motion duty to ensure again denied discharge our trict court March the Rule filed on disposition thirteen-page court’s in district unambiguous thirteen F.Supp. Of those clear and 1273. bespoke a motion court’s in- McCartney v. the district clarified pages, two discretion. See I ruling Guglielmi in Cir. our terpretation of States, dis- disposition “should not that (remanding a Rule 1967) its reliance on turbed,” that pointing mo out court’s denial sentencing where the court’s pertained language court exercised that whether unclear tion leaves illegality the asserted refusal reconsider discretion). 35(a) under Guglielmi’s Gugliel- pursuant reconsideration On having relieved as to be read was not and hearing on court held II, the district mi Six exercising its discretion. court of granting three January drawing a distinc- devoted were pages for of counsel request at the tinuances hand, what a) one on the between tion argu- written sides filed Both Guglielmi. reading of as our regarded court ments as well. that traf- original order brief, sub- Guglielmi to his In addition vio- materials ficking in obscene foments perform- to his attesting documents mitted reading other, its own b) on the and lence good his charac- prisoner, as a model ance bring about can such materials that Re- personal life. ter, exemplary his made Attor- was Reference result. that the fact was made reference newed Pornogra- on Commission ney General’s bound is wheelchair Guglielmi’s wife degra- linking the Report Final phy institution Maryland in a son is that his films in certain depicted dation reem- also Guglielmi criminally insane. ... violence of sexual level “the offender a first was that he phasized with juxtaposed exposed,” so population en- business pornography was out films con- description of graphic of recidivism. no threat posing tirely, thus hope the stated I with Guglielmi tained against order] reduc- argued “evaluate[] [the we would government that pages Three facts.” that of those grounds light on the tion of Gu- that at trial forms of adduced evidence extreme involved reviewed offenses instant porno- dealer “large-scale” degrading awas including particularly glielmi obscenity, is- pages took materials, two bestiality; that graphic portrayals repulsive contention en- counsel was Guglielmi sue indicated the evidence his unfairly when treated he had been significant some that business gaged January on a continuance eight request involving films similar scale sentences only two denied. indictment; 1990 was there was that charged in the to have appear court the district knowledge did showing calculated evidence gravity own view weighed illegal engaged was that he Guglielmi per- that the district court based relating to the has contended against factors offenses invalid, inappropriate, stated, “The Court the sentence when it charged, son illogical criteria—a sentence never con- counsel ... contends that defense conduct a urging a third time for Guglielmi’s per- as interim factors such pur- of the sentence review proportionality prison. His contention formance record 35(a) portion of his mo- to the Rule suant that there has been no in effect has been that we review for a second time tion and adequate exercise of discretion. 35(b) portion of his of the Rule the denial arguments addressing than the Rather for an abuse of discretion. motion seriatim, analysis by conduct our conf- Proportionality Review I. determining lating the issues and then court, continuing to whether the district conducting pro- precluded from We are questionable rele- focus factors of under portionality review of the sentence utility giving minor atten- vance and while simple rea- Eighth Amendment for the interim factors we had ad- tion to the properly has not been son that the issue II, its dis- Guglielmi dressed in exercised Guglielmi Gugliel- I. before us since See any Rule 35 in cretion as mandated II, Slip Op. at n. 1. Coun- mi meaningful way. discernable or appears unwar- to have sel oft-repeated truism that ranted faith 35(b), applicable to offenses com- Rule away 1, 1987, will wear stone. water prior generally Nov. mitted grants sentencing court discretion to Undeterred, adjusted argu- he has specifically permits reduce a argument to contend at oral ment of incarceration to one changing a sentence availability proportionality without the probation.3 review, scrutiny under an abuse sharply be more discretion standard should in this circuit that It is well-settled focused. under motion for reduction of sentence “[a] discre Rule 35 is addressed to sound II. of Discretion Abuse court, and it follows that tion of disposition of the motion the district court’s We turn our attention appeal except for a arguments. Guglielmi not reviewable on abuse of discretion mirroring the of discretion.” United States puts arguments, clear abuse forward two (4th Cir.1973); II, 946 Stumpf, as to v. 476 F.2d deficiencies we noted Ames, court abused its discretion see also United States why the district (1st Cir.1984), denied, 35(b) He first cert. U.S. denying his Rule motion. probation revocation. provided, ment of conviction or 3. The Rule determine the motion within a The court shall (a) may Correction of Sentence. The court Changing a sentence from reasonable time. illegal correct an sentence at time grant proba- incarceration to a sentence of illegal may a sentence in an correct permissible reduction constitute a tion shall provided manner within the time herein for subdivision. of sentence under this the reduction of sentence. 98-473, II, 215(b), Title 98 Stat. Pub.L. No. (b) of Sentence. A motion to Reduction 35(b) (1985) Rule to allow a amended made, may reduce a sentence or the court only changed circum- motion, reduction of sentence may with- reduce a sentence without government's only motion. on the stances days receipt by of a in 120 the court applied to offenses com- The amendment judg- mandate issued affirmance of the and is thus not mitted after November Supreme denying review ment of of, applicable having upholding, judg- here. the effect of violating consequence of as a probation (1985) 83 L.Ed.2d 1165, 105 S.Ct. impose judge conditions, required is to allow of Rule (“The function crime for the maximum if, reflec- further to decide of a ve- motor transportation interstate harsh.”); unduly seems tion, Rule 35 mo- considering Lewis’ hicle. on Fed. Advisory Committee F.2d 501 bound- establish to not hesitated we have female codefendant tencing tainted because may not court a district which beyond aries simply on the sentence lenient given more example, in For sentence. imposing ingo v. Eber- sex); States United her of basis Penitentia- Warden, Maryland v. Stevens (1969)(remand- 1009, 1015 hardt, 417 F.2d Cir.1967), in (4th 429 F.2d ry, 382 increased possibly was ed where im- years’ 20 to sentenced was defendant in- between committed crimes of $47, we robbing a store prisonment teaching conviction). The dictment wrote, discre- defining abuses the authorities sentencing of modern concept whole motions Rule 35 disposition in the tion the exercise calls for II that procedure in conclude us to led of dis- high order genuine of a sentencing judge must reflect “disposition such crime to the discretion, not fit the a discretion to cretion princi- and rou- inapplicable “Usual” or the defendant. incorrect toured maxi- F.2d statutory Slip Op. at [877 imposition of ples.” tine offenders upon (table)]. first mum sentence substantially in that stand who others such duty ensure Mindful being regard had without position discretion, find that an exercise offense character nature district of the thorough review personality record the defendant’s of March opinion and responsibility abrogation an seems court district that only conclude can discretion which negation discernably its discretion to exercise failed judge. in the trial vests sufficiently law has It meaningfully. or of, balancing v. Ro- balanced, States demonstrated United or See also 433. Id. at offense Cir.1982) (inter- of the and character the nature senthal, F.2d 722 personal and his record if Guglielmi’s defen- against be exercised appeal will cession and the mandated sentencing court character as that demonstrates dant circuit. in all penalties law this imposed stiff mechanically without nature particular of a in its instances above, recited As defendants individual of the emphasize lengths consideration great went Foss, 501 F.2d crimes, involved); v. United seriousness (same). Cir.1974) (1st and, a lesser operation, of his scale crimes tent, deter Lewis, the need 392 F.2d of such the substance is not court, It sentenc- future. at Cir.1968),the nearly as us troubles that justifications U.S.C. mistakenly believed ing, unwaver- court's as does much revocation of 4208(a)(2), providing placed the district court expense squarely before them at the ing focus in recognized lip no more than service. The We amounts to other considerations. entirely appropriate goals “it is detailing punitive I that of the of deter- sentence, imposing for, for a when rule cannot act as a substitute or rence gravity of nature and upon the comment perti- inappropriate, consideration of facts at 456. We further the offense.” an indi- discretionary nent to evaluation on Tucker, 404 in accept that United States pointed basis. As the Foss court vidualized L.Ed.2d 592 92 S.Ct. U.S. out, declared (1972), Supreme Court has duty The court’s to “individualize” “may appropriately sentencing judge that a simply means whatever scope, largely inquiry broad conduct thoughts as to the deterrent the kind of informa- either as to unlimited jail he value of the must consider, the source from may tion he every case reexamine and measure 446, 92 Id. at S.Ct. may which it come.” against the relevant facts and other little doubt that And we have important goals such as the offender’s impact consider the tencing court is free to rehabilitation. on a commu- crimes have had a defendant’s 501 F.2d at 528. community’s in- nity and to vindicate have, addition, flat We the court’s justice. terest See hearing original statement that a on the (4th Cir.1991). Bakker, to the record was un- motion or reference here, a Rule reviewing the denial of But necessary because “this case involved such motion, weigh upon such statements egregious film that the Court will discretionary scale. one side expression nor the forget never Thus, no matter reemphasis, mere their jury which had to this the faces of the analysis or how forceful extensive the how added.) (Emphasis pornography ...”. language, falls short of graphic and view, statement, clearly That in our cuts meaningful of demonstrating a exercise against sentencing “philosophy tempered a the kind we envisioned Gu- discretion of facts,” weigh by willingness to individual glielmi II. and, contrary, to the we absent indications of the First Cir- We find the comments inevitably are left to conclude that the dis- reviewing particularly harsh sen- cuit in impose influenced to trict court was par- by Judge Frankel to be tence the defendant. tence the films and not ticularly instructive: a sentence is inconsistent with the Such case, present judge’s The remarks law of this circuit. States v. In- policy, reflecting a stern fall while (4th Cir.1976)(“[a] gram, 530 F.2d say by much—of the short—we do not rigid sentencing policy solely on the based Undoubtedly, we are in- impermissible. charged is crime with which defendant manifestations of fluenced the court’s conception an exer- ‘is under no reasonable concern, patience receptivity, indicat- ”).4 judicial cise of discretion’ tempered by ing philosophy was that his willingness weigh individual facts. to II, “Rule As we stated in discretionary clear that a makes ... Foss, By contrast from [35] 501 F.2d at 529. in favor of appraisal of case case, single us a state- [a convict’s] that we have before reduction is the movant’s due.” No. 88- pur- thirteen-page ment in a which that, Slip Op. at 8. We are convinced balancing of an ports to conduct a careful us, Guglielmi in the case before was denied against goals of de- individualized discretionary appraisal called type passing terrence. Such a reference find the district human factors the Rule. We legitimate substantial Stevens, particular Ingram, indices or manifestations and Ro- not 4. While cases such as Here, failure, justified the "routine” or "mechanical" senthal concerned that remand. that sentences, imposition failure of severe it was the apparent equally equally and thus de- failure is sentencing judge properly exercise to serving of remand. by individualizing discretion (2d Cir.1977), Robin, bereft States 17,1990 to be March court’s “in a few instances recognized which bal- the court indices that meaningful where circumstances may be unusual there against the crime the nature anced appear- and the judge’s sake ‘both and circumstances characteristics personal a differ- assignment to justice’ ance of further That conclusion Guglielmi. public salutary and ‘is judge ent insistence district buttressed minimizes even interest, especially it opinion to itsof almost half devoting ” (cita- at 9-10 Id. partiality.’ suspicion of of the imposition initial justification determining proprie- omitted). tions begin- from the which judge, the Rob- to a different remand ty of little, any, rele- if to have ning considered considered, in court district with to the issue vance rea- original judge (1) would whether are, confronted. was, now to upon remand expected sonably be regret, giv- conclude, genuine with We thus difficulty putting out have substantial the case and manner drawn-out en the expressed previously mind or her of his district efforts painstaking be erro- findings determined or views again be once case must that the must be on evidence that neous based afford in order remanded rejected, discretionary the kind 35(b) motion reassignment advisable (2) analysis whether consistent consideration justice, appearance then, preserve the question, remaining The here. entail reassignment would (3) the same whether remand is whether proportion out of duplication exercise permissible in a waste result would not, appearance preserving any gain it that would believe We of discretion. fairness. requisite provide from the compel previously reasons 10. For Id. at would be performance judge a linger long over we need pressed, unfair, expect. unreasonable, indeed three of these of whether each question history of instant procedural satisfied. has been prongs some absent us convinced has left prong, first As to the shall be part, we on our act affirmative on a the- reliance and substantial continued of remands cycle in an endless locked sexually between nexus ory a causal no clos- move us will appeals renewed be- sexually violent materials explicit exercise meaningful discerning a er to his comment in its viewers havior discretion, will but sentencing judge’s the case nor forget never he “will adversely the only to effect serve rather had jury which faces of pression on the and its circuit this relationship of obviating the as pornography” this to view Gugliel- courts. reference hearing or for a need consid- that such file, suggest strongly mi’s that this understood it be We wish forefront will remain erations to different a remand requiring case not a re- to be thinking were part of the of bias judge Robin As the again. yet himto manded See, States e.g., United sentencing judge. stated, aptly bias); court (religious Bakker, at 740 F.2d 925 v. re- has judge a case where 557 the rare Diamond, F.2d In v. States United an erroneous adhered bias). peatedly Neverthe- Cir.1977) (regional (4th attention, his is called error circuits,5 facing number less, growing may be another reassignment to those similar quite circumstances “an to avoid in order three-part advisable here, adopted present merely the Court futility which] [in in United Circuit by the Second out test set Long, Cir.1982); v. 294, (1st United States 678, White, F.2d v. e.g., United 5. See 1981); (5th A Cir. Unit Sears, n. 7 Cir.1988); Roe (11th Johnson, 476-77 Cir.), F.2d cert. Co., Bercheny F.2d & buck denied, 1980). L.Ed.2d 107 S.Ct. Cir. 479 U.S. Garcia, (1986); truth, In right tionary at 1006. scale.” Id. only hill to march marching up the exercise its discretion and district court did again.” down unlawful conduct the nature of the found view, omitted). our (citations at 11 Id. outweigh any factors adduced such as to need Sisyphus legend of the the incarnation The mitigation of it. decision overturn prolonged. not be propels fed- of such discretion the exercise prongs, our and third second As to the little appellate courts on basis of eral to en- throughout has been purpose stated preference into what is personal than more function, the exercise sure, proper is our function. In its indisputably a trial court meaningful discretion legitimate the sentence here is apparent belief that 35(b) mov- every Rule court due a district the of- severe relative to disproportionately II, Slip Op. at ant. committed, appellate court has fense carried Here, purpose can supplanted the district court’s effectively remanding the case to a differ- fully by out its own. discretion with to be of purpose which we feel ent Second, emphasizes Gugliel- majority outweigh waste gravity sufficient character, record, personal prison mi’s do- may result from so which duplication and criti- family circumstances individual ing. failing to accord the district court for cizes that our emphasize Finally, we ques- significant weight. I these factors “imply read to today should not be provide can whether such factors tion of the trial or any personal criticism dis- ground finding an abuse of proper Robin, 10. To 553 F.2d at tencing judge.” cretion, light of the particularly Sentenc- grounded in contrary, our decision is explicitly de-empha- ing Guidelines belief, careful examina- informed our of- considerations favor of size such record, that the district tion of the sentencing. See 28 U.S.C. fense-based expected to reasonably be “cannot below 994(e). 991(b)(1)(B), Although this case §§ impressions from his ... the earlier erase sentencing, pre-Guidelines involves lean backwards may tend to over mind or surely irrelevant to cannot be Guidelines fair and in an effort to be or overreact approach inquiry. A fact-finder would impartial. new respect personal factors is similar handicap.” Id. For all under such labor Congress I find it adopted by to that reasons, judgment foregoing reverse the district court difficult to is thus the district court emphasis when its abuse of discretion the offense rather than the nature of AND REMANDED. VACATED of the defendant has the characteristics approach to sen- approved since become WILKINSON, Judge, Circuit tencing. judgment: concurring resen- remand this case for I too would II. reasons than tencing but for different Nevertheless, accept the sen I cannot majority. expressed those severity of a sen in this ease. The tence idiosyncratic ought purely not to be tence I. pursuant legislative to a should be but majority’s rea- My Smith, reservations about the mandate. See United First, although Cir.1982)(“It osten- soning 234, are twofold. is for Con reviewing exercise sibly say the district court's be a crime and how gress to what shall punished; it is not the under Fed.R.Crim.P. shall be of discretion that crime Court.”); appears akin majority what to be of this prerogative conducts majority Holmes, Cir. review. The proportionality 1988). most se Capital punishment, not exer- that the district court did claims society can visit any penalty “dis- sentencing discretion vere cise its pursuant imposed been wrongdoer, and has meaningful way,” At cernable or many legislatures of the clear mandate “only the discre- weighed that it one side of con- punishment of putation speaking community generally a sentence mandate The Guidelines duct. the Guidelines Similarly, jury. through someone fourteen eight to of months times, they are but at strict appear may record, potential- enhanced criminal no with pa set broad Congress and authorized months if twenty-four eighteen ly to discretion. of for the rameters “sadistic portrayed also films were Guidelines reasons of One of depictions or other conduct masochistic punish insure towas promulgated 2G3.1(b)(2). The § U.S.S.G. violence.” society’s senti actually reflect would ment twenty- was received sentence idiosyncratic personally not ments that Gu- presume cannot years. We five uni “sought reasonable view; framers serving parole receive will glielmi narrowing the sentencing by formity any or at months and four years eight imposed in sentences disparity wide assumption time; an subsequent by sim committed offenses criminal similar and would province our beyond be Sentencing offenders.” ilar part. speculation mere constitute Manual, Ch. Commission, Guidelines binding course, Guidelines, are not The 1990) (Nov. A, p.s. [hereinafter Pt. § Never- case. this U.S.S.G.]. indication theless, remain best they to the lead in combination reasons Two legis- through expressed society’s views indeed is here that the sentence conclusion quite authorization, they are lative any scope of beyond idiosyncratic The here. happened has what odds First, length mandate. legislative fact, the sort is, in arti- an consequence of is the promulgation led abuse twenty-five assigned The construct. ficial place. in the first Guidelines on five based was imprisonment year by a Setting aside to five that led films shipments secutive should be conscientious num- The sentences. five-year consecutive an individ- wrong done thing. But rare magnitude thus shipments, ber may punishment idiosyncratic by purely ual easily be sentence, could possible one of those constitute as to apparent sobe itself aspect This manipulated. may had recourse where instances rare operation any undercover fatal Because court. appellate an in the some necessarily entails legislative any strayed far from here tence of undercover the amount frequency judgment. sanction, I concur however, lies, difficulty purchases. limiting principle. lack apparent if a sen- distorted can be will Legislative continuing by a up run simply tence Sentencing Indeed, the orders. series possibility of that Plaintiff-Appellant, aware SHEALY, was Commission Norris eye “with Guidelines designed the treatment eliminating unfair toward WINSTON; Honor L. William Honorable manipulation.” count from might flow Monroe, Jo Honorable R. Thomas able 4(a), “For A, p.s. 1, Pt. Ch. U.S.S.G. Defendants-Appel Gwaltney, seph C. a three-count treat guidelines example, lees. charges indictment, count each 90-1447. No. or theft heroin grams of sale Appeals, indict- single-count as a $10,000, the same heroin Circuit. grams Fourth of 300 charging sale ment Id.; id. see $30,000.” theft 6, Argued Feb. of Gu- nature (d). The artificial 3D1.2(b), 11, 1991. April Decided determi- solely while glielmi’s 6, 1991. May As Amended factor one native, surely must inquiry. indication The second com- the Guidelines’ idiosyncratic

here notes by Congress. Sec- templated or authorized ‘superb institutional Defendant has ond, urged dispute Guglielmi has record,’ and the Court does mandate in II ignored the information fur- statement based remand, However, the district court consider not detract that does nished. by balancing the nature incar- the Rule 35 motion principal reason for from the Court’s against the crime such factors Gu- ceration, and that is deterrence.” record, any previous criminal glielmi’s timely appeal, filed a notice of circumstances, tenuating personal

Notes

Notes miscon- tion, we ruled “[t]he objective underlying 35, (“[T]he R.Crim.P. contrary to his act him to ception drove every convicted ‘give ... of Rule felt all He bereft judgment. considered sen- round before second defendant may course, legislature Of discretion. tencing [afford] action freedom a court deprive to reconsider opportunity so courts cannot but possessed, previously about information any further light of entitled A defendant is themselves. bind may have been or the defendant deliberation and unset unfettered ”) (citing the interim.’ him in presented added). (emphasis Id. judge.” Ellenbogen, occasion vacate have had alsoWe amend- Cir.1968) (respecting (2d statutory or constitutional tences 35(b)). ments Maples, See United siderations. afforded, so broad Despite the Cir.1974) (sen- 985, 986-87

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Louis Guglielmi

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Apr 11, 1991

Citation: 929 F.2d 1001

Docket Number: 90-6809

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.