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 or 2006.

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

Feb. 13, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Admissible non-hearsay
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

USA v. Richardson (February 13, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. of Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0059p-06.pdf
-  Richardson pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) for robbing a Bank One branch in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Considering the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, the district court classified Richardson as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because he had two previous state convictions for "crimes of violence," and sentenced Richardson to 180 months in prison. On direct appeal, Richardson argues that his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and furthermore, that the district court's enhancement of his sentence as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 violates his Sixth Amendment rights. Upon review, we conclude that Richardson's sentence is reasonable in light of Booker and does not offend the Sixth Amendment. We AFFIRM.
 
USA v. Payne  (February 13, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. of Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0060p-06.pdf
-  Payne appeals his conviction for passing counterfeit obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. Payne argues that the district court erred in admitting out-of-court statements under the coconspirator-statement exclusion from the hearsay definition, because (1) Payne was not a member of the conspiracy and (2) certain statements were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Payne also asserts that the district court improperly limited the scope of his recross-examination of a witness. Because the statements were admissible non-hearsay and the district court did not unconstitutionally limit the scope of recross-examination, we AFFIRM Payne's conviction.
 

Daily Case Updates