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

To: combat_boots
Quotes from your first link:

"The Hammonds' attorneys say the government didn't fight for stiffer sentences during sentencing and that the government waived its right to appeal in reaching a plea agreement."

WTF????? The dirty trail probably leads back to Holder. He was still AG then.

"The panel held that the district court illegally sentenced the defendants to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum, acting appellate judge Stephen Murphy wrote in the panel's opinion."

Gee, I wonder when the Feds are going to indict the members of the district court who "illegally" sentenced them?

138 posted on 01/03/2016 2:00:19 PM PST by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]


To: mass55th
"The Hammonds' attorneys say the government didn't fight for stiffer sentences during sentencing and that the government waived its right to appeal in reaching a plea agreement."

The appeals court found that just because the government did not mention any possibility of appealing the sentence during the plea agreement it doesn't mean that any waiver of the right to appeal was expressed or implied. The government had argued for the minimum sentence both during sentencing and in their sentencing memorandum, and noted that the judge lacked the discretion to give sentences less than the mandatory minimum.

Gee, I wonder when the Feds are going to indict the members of the district court who "illegally" sentenced them?

If they indicted every judge who had their decision overturned by an appeals court then half the judiciary would be locked up.

141 posted on 01/03/2016 2:26:56 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | 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