U.S. v. Harper

2 Citing cases

  1. Mack v. United States

    Case No. 3:15-cv-1196-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2018)

    Although the Indictment states that the conspiracy ended "in or about April, 2013," a district court is authorized to take into account information that is not within the indictment when determining sentencing enhancements. See United States v. Louis, 559 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2009) ("[T]he district court's factual findings for purposes of sentencing may be based on, among other things, evidence heard during trial, undisputed statements in the [presentence investigation report], or evidence presented during the sentencing hearing."); cf. United States v. Harper, 339 F. App'x 974, 978 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding two checks, not included within the indictment, as relevant evidence to be used in determining the loss amount for a sentencing enhancement). While Collins arguably should have objected to the firearm enhancement, it is not obvious that the enhancement does not apply, such that Collins's failure to object would fall outside the "wide range of professionally competent assistance."

  2. Rivera v. United States

    CASE NO. 6:12-cv-1286-Orl-28KRS (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2013)

    " Id. '"To show that the evidence lacks minimal indicia of reliability a defendant must establish (1) that the challenged evidence is materially false, and (2) that it actually served as a basis for the sentence.'" United States v. Harper, 339 F. App'x 974, 976 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Bourne, 130 F.3d 1444, 1447 (11th Cir. 1997)). The record reflects that at the plea hearing, Petitioner admitted that she personally received packages from Puerto Rico containing at least five kilograms of cocaine (Criminal Case Doc. No. 458 at 11-12.)