From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Jernigan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 15, 2012
No. 3:10cr255 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2012)

Opinion

No. 3:10cr255

06-15-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STARLETTA JERNIGAN, Defendant


(Judge Munley)


MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Before the court for disposition is Defendant Starletta Jernigan's motion for clarification of sentence (Doc. 78). The court sentenced defendant on June 12, 2012 for conspiracy to commit access device fraud. The sentence included, inter alia, a twenty-four (24) month prison term to run concurrent to a state court sentence that defendant is serving.

At sentencing, defense counsel requested that the court grant the defendant an adjustment or departure pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline (hereinafter "USSG") § 5G1.3(b), for the time that she has already served on her state sentence.

Defense counsel indicates that he understood that the court granted such an adjustment or departure. The United States Attorney and the probation office believe that the adjustment or departure was not granted. Thus, defendant filed the instant motion for clarification to determine whether the court did in fact grant the adjustment or not.

The defense notes that a district court cannot grant pre-sentence credit regarding the state court sentence. (Doc. 78, Mot. for Clarification, ¶ 15). Defendant argues, however, that the court can reach the same result in appropriate cases by applying USSG § 5G1.3(b) or Note 3(E).

To the extent that defendant is correct that such a result could be reached by applying the appropriate guideline, the court declines to exercise its discretion to order such an application in the instant case. The court indicated at the sentencing that defense counsel, Matthew Carmody, did a good job for the defendant and worked hard on the case. (Doc. 79, Notes of Testimony, Sentencing, Jun. 12, 2012 at 19). Further, the court noted that it "agreed" with defense counsel. (Id.) By way of clarification, the court agreed to a concurrent sentence and a shorter sentence than otherwise could have been imposed. It did not agree with invoking USSG § 5G1.3(b) or Note 3(E) to provide the defendant an adjustment or departure based upon the time she has already served on the state court sentence.

BY THE COURT:

_______________

JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY

United States District Court


Summaries of

United States v. Jernigan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 15, 2012
No. 3:10cr255 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Jernigan

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STARLETTA JERNIGAN, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 15, 2012

Citations

No. 3:10cr255 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2012)