U.S. v. Bartsma

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Counsel Must Object to District Court's Failure to State Sufficient Reasons For Sentence

    Federal Public Defender Office, District of New MexicoShari AllisonJuly 11, 2007

    The 10th follows Lopez-Flores because it was first, because it has the benefit of affording the d.ct. a chance to correct its mistake, because of the overruling of U.S. v. Bartsma, 198 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1999) in U.S. v. Atencio, 476 F.3d 1099, 1105, n. 6 (10th Cir. 2007), and because other circuits agree with the Lopez-Flores approach. The 10th failed to mention a couple of circuits that take the opposite position.

  2. Restrictions Imposed Without Adequate Notice Reversed

    Federal Public Defender Office, District of New MexicoShari AllisonJune 27, 2007

    U.S. v. Verner, 2007 WL 1776351 (6/21/07)(unpub'd) - The 10th follows U.S. v. Bartsma, 198 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1999), and reverses the imposition of sex offender restrictions that were imposed without adequate notice. Bartsma applied because the sentencing occurred before Bartsma was overruled by U.S. v. Atencio, 476 F.3d 1099, 1105-06, n. 6 (10th Cir. 2007).