Wednesday, December 29, 2010

U.S. v. Luong, et al., No. 09-10265 (12-29-10) (Wallace with Thomas and Mills, Sr. D.J., C.D. Ill.).
This is a second appeal. The first appeal affirmed convictions, but remanded for resentencing because the sentencing was under a mandatory guidelines scheme. In this appeal, defendants, convicted and sentenced for robbing computer companies of computer chips at gunpoint, argue that their 924(c) convictions should really be sentenced as 924(o) convictions (conspiracy to use firearms) and also that the Hobbs Act conviction should result in only one 924(c) conviction and not multiple. Interesting argument, pens the 9th, but too late. Because the pertinent convictions were affirmed in the first appeal, and the remand's mandate was only for sentencing issues, there is not jurisdiction on these issues. As for the sentencing issue raised, the 9th affirmed the imposition of the mandatory consecutive sentences under 924(c).


Post a Comment

<< Home