TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Paul Robinson

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul ROBINSON, A/K/A Paul Ryan, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Robinson, 948 F.2d 697 (11th Cir. 1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 9, 1991
Docket
No. 89-3262
Judges
Tjoflat, Hatchett, Dubina
Citations
948 F.2d 6971991 WL 2423101991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28685
Summary
Non-Argument Calendar.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

We vacate the appellant’s sentence in this case and remand for resentencing. Prior to the imposition of the appellant’s sentence, the Government moved the district court, pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines § 5K1.1 (Nov. 1, 1990), to impose a sentence below that specified by the guideline range, on the ground that the appellant had provided the Government substantial assistance. The district court did not rule on the motion; yet, it granted the appellant a downward departure in fashioning his sentence. The court did so without articulating a reason for the departure as required by the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (b) (1988), i.e., without articulating the “mitigating circumstance ... not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in [a lower sentence than] that [specified for the instant case].”

Section 5K1.1 is a sentencing tool, not a resentencing tool; thus, the sentencing judge, when faced with a section 5K1.1 motion, must rule on it before imposing sentence.

See United States v. Howard, 902 F.2d 894, 897 (11th Cir.1990). On remand, therefore, the court shall, after finding the relevant sentencing facts and the appropriate guideline range, rule on the Government’s motion. If the court denies the motion, it shall then give the defendant an opportunity to articulate ground(s), if any he has, for a downward departure and otherwise accord him his right of allocution. Finally, after imposing sentence the court shall elicit the parties’ objections as required by United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102-03 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 275 , 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990).

VACATED and REMANDED, with instructions.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 11994: 119922026peak 1992 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Steve R. Treleaven, and Roderick D. Hier35 F.3d 458 (9th Cir. 1994)
  2. United States v. Keith M. Mittelstadt969 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1992)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Steve R. Treleaven, and Roderick D. Hier35 F.3d 458 (9th Cir. 1994)
  2. United States v. Keith M. Mittelstadt969 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1990) 270
Sylvester v. United States, 498 U.S. 906 (1990) 89
United States v. Howard, 902 F.2d 894 (11th Cir. 1990) 32

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list