§Why CasetextPricing

USA v. Wright et al

MEMORANDUM AS TO CHRISTOPHER G. WRIGHT, RAVINDER S. CHAWLA, ANDREW TEITELMAN RE: PLEA AGREEMENTS. Signed

13 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 25,436 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

  2. Freeman v. U.S.

    564 U.S. 522 (2011)   Cited 1,979 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding a term of imprisonment resulting from a Rule 11(c)(C) plea agreement is "based on" the guidelines for purposes of § 3582(c) when, inter alia, the agreement "provide for a specific term of imprisonment . . . but also make clear that the basis for the specified term is a Guidelines sentencing range" and "that sentencing range is evident from the agreement itself"

  3. Skilling v. U.S.

    561 U.S. 358 (2010)   Cited 1,659 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal

  4. United States v. Wright

    665 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 65 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Vacating honest services wire fraud conviction where verdict encompassed both bribery theory and defective conflict-of-interest theory

  5. In re Morgan

    506 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must consider individually every sentence bargain presented to them"

  6. U.S. v. Lewis

    633 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2011)   Cited 60 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a provision in a Rule 11(c)(C) plea agreement that a federal sentence "shall be served concurrent with the state sentence" was contravened when such sentences were ordered to be served consecutively

  7. United States v. Foy

    28 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that the district court need not state on the record its reasons for rejecting a plea agreement provided that "the record as a whole renders the basis of the decision reasonably apparent to the reviewing court"

  8. In re Vasquez-Ramirez

    443 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "going to trial" or "pleading guilty to ... and then appealing conviction" are "inadequate" remedies for purposes of mandamus, as they would result in "substantial prejudice" to the defendant, the government, and the judicial system

  9. U.S. v. RUCH

    906 F. Supp. 261 (E.D. Pa. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Crim A. No. 95-370 November 10, 1995. Order Denying Reconsideration November 22, 1995. Jerome R. Richter, Michael D. Shepard, Blank, Rome, Comisky McCauley, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant. Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for U.S. ORDER-MEMORANDUM EDUARDO ROBRENO, District Judge. AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 1995, upon consideration of the Government's Submission Regarding Rule 11(e)(1)(C) Plea (docket no. 34), the defendant's Memorandum in Support of Rule 11(e)(1)(C)

  10. Section 3553 - Imposition of a sentence

    18 U.S.C. § 3553   Cited 76,838 times   111 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"

  11. Section 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

    18 U.S.C. § 371   Cited 21,519 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"

  12. Section 1346 - Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud"

    18 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 1,297 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Stating that term "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used inter alia in wire fraud statute, see id. § 1343, "includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services"

  13. Section 3 - Accessory after the fact

    18 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 1,067 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that the offender act “in order to hinder or prevent [the principal's] apprehension, trial or punishment”