Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

Feb. 7, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Federal Sentencing
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.

 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinion.

 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

USA v. VanHoose (February 7, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0048p-06.pdf
-  In February 1994, Defendant-Appellant Paul
VanHoose ("VanHoose"), having been convicted of a federal drug offense, was sentenced to a prison term to be followed by a term of supervised release. VanHoose subsequently violated several supervised-release conditions. The district court revoked the supervised-release term and sentenced VanHoose to the maximum statutorily-authorized prison term to be followed by a new term of supervised release. In doing so, the district court invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), a provision that was enacted in September 1994.  VanHoose argues that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by sentencing him pursuant to a statutory provision that was not in effect at the time of the conduct that led to his original conviction and sentence. VanHoose also contends that under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the statutory provision that was in effect at the time of his federal offense, the imposition of a maximum postrevocation prison term foreclosed the possibility of a new term of supervised release. Because the Ex Post Facto Clause was not implicated by the district court's erroneous reliance on § 3583(h) and the sentence was statutorily authorized by § 3583(e)(3), we AFFIRM VanHoose's sentence.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

No Opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates