In the current crop of per curiams the court follows the Supreme Court’s lead on two sentencing issues.
United States v. Pickett, No. 09-0683-cr (2d Cir. July 20, 2010) (Winter, Cabranes, Wesley, CJJ) (per curiam), follows Dolan v. United States, 2010 Wl 2346548 (June 14, 2010). Pickett was sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment after a fraud trial. The court did not impose restitution immediately, holding it open for a more complete accounting of the victims’ losses. It entered a restitution order ninety-eight days later. Under Dolan, a sentencing court that misses the ninety-day statutory deadline for imposing restitution can still do so where it “made clear prior to the deadline’s expiration that it would,” leaving open “only the amount.” Since that is what happened here, the restitution order was proper.
United States v. Mock, No. 09-4154-cr (2d Cir. July 19, 2010) (Wesley, Hall, CJJ, Goldberg, JCIT) (per curiam) applied Dillon v. United States, 2010 WL 2400109 (June 17, 2010), in rejecting a claim, raised on the defendant’s appeal of the denial of a crack resentencing, that the district court made an error in the original sentencing. Under Dillon, a crack resentencing is a “limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding.” Thus, neither the district court nor the circuit was free to consider the defendant’s argument regarding procedural errors made at the original sentencing.
Comments are closed.