Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dirtboy

You do not even know how to cite a case, yet you propose to tell people what is or is not constitutional. Give me the full cite please.


35 posted on 12/17/2015 10:39:15 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

I gave you the citation exactly as it is referenced. Try Google, it comes right up. Also review the related US v Watts.


37 posted on 12/17/2015 10:42:59 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/148/case.html

In Putra, authorities had videotaped two transactions in which Putra and a codefendant (a major drug dealer) sold cocaine to a Government informant. The indictment charged Putra with, among other things, one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute one ounce of cocaine on May 8, 1992; and a second count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five ounces of cocaine on May 9, 1992, both in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U. S. C. § 2. The jury convicted Putra on the first count but acquitted her on the second. At sentencing, however, the District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Putra had indeed been involved in the May 9 transaction. The District Court explained that the second sale was relevant conduct under USSG § lB1.3, and it therefore calculated Putra’s base offense level under the Guidelines by aggregating the amounts of both sales.


44 posted on 12/17/2015 10:55:48 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson