James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, which houses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in downtown Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 3, 2021. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
Five more judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have joined their colleague in saying that courts should not “reflexively defer” to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ commentary when deciding punishments and must interpret rules that are ambiguous in favor of defendants.
The full Philadelphia-based court on Monday upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence of Malik Nasir, a Delaware man who was handed 210 months in prison on drug and firearms charges after a judge determined he qualified as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Nasir argued, and the judges agreed, that career-offender enhancement shouldn’t have factored into his sentence since one of his prior convictions was an inchoate offense, which appears in interpretive commentary issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission but not the guidelines themselves.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
