Sunday, May 22, 2022

US v. Randall, No. 20-10339 (5-20-22)(Bumatay w/Bress; dissent by Wardlaw). In sentencing issues of first impression concerning receiving and distributing child porn, the 9th holds (1) 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) does not require the defendant to actually receive “valuable consideration” for a sentencing enhancement; and (2) 3014(a)requires a $5000 fine per offense rather than the nature of offense.

Dissenting, Wardlaw argues that 3014(a) differs markedly from 3013, which requires an assessment per conviction, and must be interpreted differently.

There are Circuit splits on both issues: (1) 6th (has to receive) vs 5th (no receipt); (2) 3rd (fine for each conviction) vs 2d (offender and nature of offense)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello there! My name is Haze and I would like to post an article on your website. Please let me know if there is such a possibility. Also, let me know the details about Guest Post submission on your website. Word count for the article, link insertion option, dofollow or nofollow link, should I provide a short bio for the author. Any other guidelines would be appreciated
Best Wishes
Haze Woodlock

Monday, May 23, 2022 1:44:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home