U.S. v. Berro

5 Citing cases

  1. Berro v. United States

    558 U.S. 1135 (2010)

    Jamal Saadallah BERRO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.Case below, 348 Fed.Appx. 98. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

  2. United States v. Hohn

    443 F. App'x 931 (6th Cir. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Given that the district court specifically considered whether the Bureau of Prisons could accommodate Hohn's impairments and was presented with scant evidence regarding home confinement, the district court did not err, let alone plainly err, in its application of USSG § 5H1.4. See United States v. Berro, 348 F. App'x 98, 101 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1113 (2010). Hohn also contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

  3. U.S. v. Davis

    422 F. App'x 445 (6th Cir. 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Arguing colloquy was insufficient to satisfy Rule 11(b)(N)'s requirement the Court ensure the defendant understood the mandatory minimum sentence faced and references to sentencing guidelines were so misleading that the defendant could not have understood the mandatory nature of the penalty

    Rather, the inquiry is focused on whether the defendant understood the terms as the prosecutor or the court explained them. See, e.g., United States v. Berro, 348 Fed. Appx. 98, 102 (6th Cir. 2009) (focusing on whether the prosecutor's explanation of the appeal waiver was clear and whether the district court sufficiently followed up). It was therefore not reversible error, by itself, for the district court to have the prosecutor read Davis his mandatory minimum sentence.

  4. U.S. v. Tanker

    375 F. App'x 554 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    This court has not held, however, that the failure to file a motion to dismiss would result in forfeiture of the right to rely on an otherwise valid waiver of appeal. Although defendant relies on our decision in United States v. Berro, 348 Fed.Appx. 98 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1113, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010), that case is not precisely on point. There, we did not find forfeiture; rather, we decided to address the merits since the appellate waiver issue was not raised by the government or briefed by the parties.

  5. United States v. Pierce

    Criminal No. 06-cr-20411-3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2014)

    Defendant does not allege that his guilty plea included a waiver that was not "informed and voluntary" and has made no attempt in the instant motion to challenge his guilty Plea. Thus, Defendant's § 2255 raises claims "that simply relate to issues a defendant has validly agreed not to appeal or attack collaterally, from those that go to the very validity of a guilty plea." Acosta, 480 F.3d at 422; see also United States v. Berro, 348 F. App'x 98, 102-03 (6th Cir. 2009) (stating that where the appellate waiver was valid, the defendant waived his ability to challenge his sentence, which fell within the time line specified in the agreement). Defendant waived his right to appeal and therefore Defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to appeal on his behalf.