Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
U.S. v. Alves

9 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Havener

    905 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that section 1B1.10 "expressly forbids retroactive application" of amendments that do not appear on the list of sentencing guidelines amendments included in section 1B1.10(d)

    We have held that the district court's interpretation of that guideline is correct. United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495, 498 (1st Cir. 1989). Subsequently, on May 17, 1989, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 266, and sent it to Congress for review.

  2. U.S. v. Samuels

    970 F.2d 1312 (4th Cir. 1992)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that "[n]othing in § 924(e) or the Guidelines suggests that offenses must be tried or sentenced separately in order to be counted as separate predicate offenses"

    See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(c)(2) (establishing a criminal history category of VI where the defendant "used . . . the firearm or ammunition in connection with a crime of violence"). Courts have held that the adjustments in Chapter 3 of the Guidelines are generally inapplicable to the offense levels set by the career offender and armed career criminal provisions. See United States v. Thomas, 894 F.2d 996, 997 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Cruz, 882 F.2d 922, 924-26 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Huff, 873 F.2d 709, 713-14 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495, 497-98 (1st Cir. 1989). Exceptions to this rule are specifically noted in the Guidelines.

  3. U.S. v. Graham

    931 F.2d 1442 (11th Cir. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that intimidation element was satisfied where the defendant gave the teller a demand note, glared at her, and the teller testified that she was afraid

    The United States also urges us to adopt the ruling of several other circuits which states that sentencing courts cannot give credit for acceptance of responsibility when a defendant is found to be a career offender. See United States v. Summers, 895 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Reyes, 881 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Huff, 873 F.2d 709 (3d Cir. 1989). We need not reach this issue in this case, however, because Graham did not question whether individuals sentenced as career offenders could be given credit for acceptance of responsibility.

  4. U.S. v. Summers

    895 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 7 times
    In Summers, we determined that this provision did not apply to career offenders because the Guidelines require the sentencing judge first to determine the offense level, at which point section 3E1.1 may apply, and then to determine the criminal history category.

    These courts have found that the two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility does not apply to the career offender section. See United States v. Cruz, 882 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495, 498 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Huff, 873 F.2d 709, 713 (3d Cir. 1989). We agree with those circuits' interpretation of the Guidelines.

  5. U.S. v. Thomas

    894 F.2d 996 (8th Cir. 1990)   Cited 19 times
    In Thomas the court held that the defendant's 1986 drug offense could serve as one of the two necessary predicate felonies to his conviction for a 1983-1988 conspiracy which had not yet terminated. 894 F.2d at 997.

    Several circuits have held that a career offender may not receive a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Cruz, 882 F.2d 922, 924-26 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Reyes, 881 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Huff, 873 F.2d 709, 713 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495, 497 (1st Cir. 1989). We agree with the holdings in these cases and, accordingly, agree with the District Court that the resolution of this factual issue was irrelevant to Thomas's sentence.

  6. U.S. v. Ruiz-Garcia

    886 F.2d 474 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that defendant waives objection to existence of a sentencing factor raised for first time on appeal where defendant conceded that factor below

    But where the career-criminal offense level exceeds the total offense level otherwise applicable, the former controls. See Guideline § 4B1.1; see generally United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495, 497 (1st Cir. 1989). That is the situation here.

  7. U.S. v. Cruz

    882 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1989)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that burglary of a habitation qualified as a "crime of violence" under Section 4B1.1

    Although this is a question of first impression in our circuit, both the First and Third Circuits have recently concluded that the Guidelines do not provide for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility from the sentencing levels set for career offenders. See United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Huff, 873 F.2d 709 (3d Cir. 1989). We agree.

  8. U.S. v. Reyes

    881 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1989)   Cited 6 times

    In our holding that the offense level of a career offender is not eligible for a level reduction under § 3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility), we find support in the decisions of other circuits. See United States v. Huff, 873 F.2d 709, 713-14 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495, 497-98 (1st Cir. 1989). AFFIRMED.

  9. U.S. v. Poff, (N.D.Ind. 1989)

    723 F. Supp. 79 (N.D. Ind. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    Second, the few courts to confront such situations have adopted this approach without discussion. See United States v. Alves, 873 F.2d 495 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Lawrence, 708 F. Supp. 461 (D.P.R. 1989). Third, ambiguities in penal statutes generally are to be resolved in favor of leniency.