U.S. v. King

6 Citing cases

  1. U.S.A. v. Lessner

    498 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 229 times
    Holding that the district court's decision "not to give such mitigating factors the weight that [the defendant] contends they deserve does not render her sentence unreasonable"

    She failed to raise this argument before the District Court, so again we review for plain error'. See United States v. Campbell, 295 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir.2002); see also United States v. King, 414 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir.2005). The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides as follows: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

  2. U.S. v. Deangelis

    243 F. App'x 471 (11th Cir. 2007)   Cited 6 times

    Under the plain error standard of review, we may exercise discretion to correct an error that is plain and affects substantial rights, if the error "serious affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. King, 414 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). In instances in which "the victim's losses are not ascertainable" prior to sentencing, upon notice from either the prosecuting attorney or the probation office, "the court shall set a date for the final determination of victim's losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing."

  3. U.S. v. Reifler

    446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that treating coconspirators as "victims" who are entitled to restitution from fellow perpetrators is a "fundamental" error that "adversely reflect on the public reputation of judicial proceedings"

    cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1379, 164 L.Ed.2d 85 (2006); United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 461 (6th Cir.) (" Booker does not apply to restitution" under the VWPA), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 843, 163 L.Ed.2d 718 (2005); id. at 454 ("restitution is not subject to Booker analysis because the statutes authorizing restitution, unlike ordinary penalty statutes, do not provide a determinate statutory maximum"); United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir. 2005) ("We agree with our sister Circuits, who have uniformly held that judicial fact-finding supporting restitution orders does not violate the Sixth Amendment."), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1444, 164 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006). See also United States v. King, 414 F.3d 1329, 1330-31 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that if there was Booker error it was not plain error, given that neither the Supreme Court nor the Eleventh Circuit had addressed the question and that "[e]very circuit that has addressed this issue directly has held that Blakely and Booker do not apply to restitution orders"); United States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1051 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2004) ("a 'restitution order made by the district court [under the MVRA] . . . is unaffected by Blakely'"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 472, 163 L.Ed.2d 359 (2005); United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134, 1144-45 n. 1 (10th Cir.) (rejecting Blakely and Apprendi challenges to restitution orders under the MVRA because "the amount of the restitution award does not exceed any prescribed statutory maximum"), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 993, 125 S.Ct. 510, 160 L.Ed.2d 381 (2004); United States v. Ross, 279 F.3d 600, 609 (8th Cir. 2002) ( Apprendi does not apply to orders of restitution because, although the pertinent statutes require that in

  4. United States v. Key

    Case No. 1:13-cr-20 (WLS) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2014)

    A district court cannot order restitution for psychological services or grief counseling in the absence of physical harm. United States v. Reichow, 416 F.3d 802, 806 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 601 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Manna, 201 F. App'x 146, 148 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. King, 414 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005) ("The Government confesses error with respect to that part of the restitution sum, $11,485.69, representing the bank's (i.e., the victim's) cost of providing grief counseling to its employees, because restitution for that cost is not authorized by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.").

  5. U.S. v. Holland

    Case No. CR-94-AR-263-NE (N.D. Ala. Jul. 26, 2005)

    United States v. King The first and more important new decision is United States v. King, ___ F. 3d ___, 2005 WL 1531068 (11th Cir. 2005), decided by the Eleventh Circuit on June 30, 2005. In King, the Eleventh Circuit said:

  6. U.S. v. Holland

    380 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (N.D. Ala. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    Describing the CVRA as a "new, mushy, `feel good' statute with grand title"

    United States v. King The first and more important new decision is United States v. King, 414 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2005), decided by the Eleventh Circuit on June 30, 2005. In King, the Eleventh Circuit said: