ILNews

7th Circuit rules on sentence reduction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a man resentenced because the District judge erred by not granting the defendant the one-level reduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines that was triggered by the government’s motion.

In United States of America v. Jaymie T. Mount, No. 11-2616, Jaymie T. Mount appealed Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson’s refusal to grant the government’s motion for Mount to receive an additional one-level reduction following his decision to plead guilty to possession of a gun by a felon. While awaiting trial on the charge, Mount disappeared for nearly three months before being captured. He pleaded guilty to the gun charge, which led to the District Court granting him a two-level reduction in his offense level under the sentencing guidelines. But Magnus-Stinson denied the one-level reduction based on Mount’s decision to flee.

Mount argued that the one-level reduction is mandatory once the government determines that the criteria spelled out in U.S.S.G. Section 3E1.1(b) are satisfied and it makes the necessary motion. The federal appellate court hasn’t squarely addressed this issue, but it agreed with Mount. The judges looked to decisions from other Circuits and the language of the guidelines to find the reduction is mandatory.

However, nothing in Mount’s argument touches on the District Court’s duty to evaluate the outcome of the correct computation of the advisory guideline range and then impose a reasonable sentence. In this case, the judges found Magnus-Stinson erred in not granting the one-level reduction because it ultimately affected the advisory guideline range.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT