CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2010

United States v. Batista

Luis Batista, a former NYPD detective, was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, bank fraud, and obstruction of justice. This opinion and order details the court's reasoning for his sentencing. The court denied Batista's request for a mitigating role reduction, finding his contributions to the narcotics conspiracy substantial and unique. It also applied a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice due to materially false statements made to the court and perjury during trial. Furthermore, a two-point enhancement for possession of a firearm in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy was warranted, as it was reasonably foreseeable given Batista's background and the nature of the large-scale operation. Consequently, Batista was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and supervised release.

Sentencing GuidelinesPerjuryObstruction of JusticeFirearm EnhancementNarcotics ConspiracyBank FraudMitigating Role AdjustmentPolice DetectiveWiretap EvidencePresentence Report
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. 01 CR 1121
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. United States

Carmine Russo sought to correct his sentence via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a five-level enhancement for intended loss in his plea agreement for conspiracy to commit robbery. The court dismissed the petition, first determining it was time-barred by the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, as it was filed after the September 14, 2003 deadline. Second, the court found the petition barred by Russo's knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal rights, which was part of his plea agreement for a sentence within the stipulated guidelines range. Lastly, the court rejected Russo's "actual innocence" claim concerning the intended loss calculation, concluding he understood and assented to the plea terms.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselPlea AgreementAppeal WaiverStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingActual Innocence ClaimSentencing GuidelinesIntended Loss EnhancementFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
19
Case No. S2 92 Cr. 530 (JES)
Regular Panel Decision

Riza v. United States

Shamsuddin Riza, acting pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition seeking to vacate or reduce his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Riza alleged his counsel failed to object to sentence enhancements stipulated in his plea agreement and to inaccuracies in his presentence investigation report (PSR). The District Court found Riza's petition procedurally barred because he knowingly waived his right to appeal a sentence within the Guidelines range and failed to establish cause or actual prejudice. Furthermore, the Court determined that Riza's ineffective assistance claim lacked merit as counsel was not obligated to file a frivolous appeal and the double counting argument regarding sentence enhancements was legally untenable. The Court also addressed Riza's claims regarding PSR inaccuracies and counsel's failure to object, concluding they did not rise to a constitutional level. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, but the Court ordered the October 14, 1993 sentencing transcript to be appended to Riza's PSR to correct a ministerial error.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255 PetitionHabeas CorpusSentencing EnhancementsPlea Agreement WaiverProcedural BarActual PrejudiceCause and PrejudicePresentence Investigation Report (PSR)Double Counting (Sentencing)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2013

People v. Stanley

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted rape and rape, arguing the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his alleged violation of sentence conditions. The court's sentence promise was conditioned upon defendant truthfully answering questions from the probation department for his presentence report. Defendant provided inconsistent statements to the probation officer and a social worker regarding his sexual contact with the younger victim, which led to the enhanced sentence. The appellate court concluded the record was unclear whether defendant actually lied to the probation officer about having sexual intercourse with the younger victim. Consequently, the case was remitted to the County Court for a hearing to determine if there was sufficient evidence of untruthful answers.

Enhanced SentencePlea AgreementSentence ConditionsProbation ReportPresentence InvestigationTruthfulnessSexual OffensesRapeAttempted RapeGenesee County Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2014

United States v. Tonawanda Coke Corp.

The case involves the sentencing of Defendants Mark L. Kamholz and Tonawanda Coke for violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Defendant Kamholz was also convicted of obstruction of an administrative proceeding. Chief Judge William M. Skretny addresses various motions and objections raised before the sentencing on March 19, 2014. The Court denied the Government's motion to designate community members as victims under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, finding that individual victim designation hearings would unduly complicate and prolong proceedings, and that civil suits are ongoing. The Defendants' request for an expert testimony hearing to discuss the severity of the crimes was also denied. The Court made decisions regarding various sentencing factors, including the finding that actual harm, while difficult to quantify, is presumed with continuous environmental discharges, and that parallel administrative and civil actions do not necessarily mitigate the offenses. The Court denied specific sentencing enhancements for Kamholz related to breach of trust and supervisory role, and the Barrett Tank cleanup costs. However, it granted a two-level downward departure for a permit violation enhancement. Finally, the Court indicated its intention to impose community service projects as a condition of probation for Tonawanda Coke.

Environmental LawClean Air ActRCRASentencing GuidelinesObstruction of JusticeCorporate LiabilityCriminal SentencingBenzene ContaminationPollution ControlProbation
References
42
Case No. W2007-00060-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2008

State of Tennessee v. Eric D. Charles

Eric D. Charles, the defendant, appealed his ten-year sentence for aggravated robbery, arguing the trial court misapplied two enhancement factors. While the State conceded one factor (multiple victims) was improperly applied, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's application of the second enhancement factor, which stated the defendant was a leader in an offense involving two or more criminal actors. The court found sufficient proof that Travont Cole, who drove the defendant to the motel and waited for him, was a criminal actor. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the sentence, determining that the application of a single valid enhancement factor was sufficient. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Aggravated RobberySentencing AppealEnhancement FactorsMitigating FactorsCriminal ProcedureAppellate ReviewCriminal ActorsLeader in OffenseTennessee Bureau of InvestigationUndercover Operation
References
10
Case No. 13-20-00135-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

Telly James Arrambide v. the State of Texas

Telly James Arrambide appealed his conviction for repeated violation of a protective order, a third-degree felony, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. A jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment. Arrambide raised three issues on appeal: the trial court's denial of his motion for mistrial based on an allegation that a juror withheld information during voir dire, the trial court's failure to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the sentencing enhancement allegations. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the mistrial or the new trial hearing, and concluding that there was legally sufficient evidence for the sentencing enhancement.

Criminal AppealProtective Order ViolationFelony EnhancementJuror BiasVoir Dire ChallengeMistrial DenialNew Trial MotionSentencing SufficiencyTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
23
Case No. M2000-01429-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2001

State of Tennessee v. Richard L. Thompson

Richard L. Thompson pleaded guilty to one count of incest of his stepdaughter and received a six-year sentence. He requested an alternative sentence and probation, which the trial court denied, leading to his appeal. Thompson raised five issues, challenging the trial court's consideration of a prior Pennsylvania conviction, the applicability of enhancement factors, the necessity of confinement to avoid depreciating the offense's seriousness, and the failure to consider less restrictive measures or his special needs for community corrections. The appellate court reviewed the record, arguments, and applicable law, finding no error and affirming the trial court's judgment. The court specifically found error in applying one enhancement factor (victim vulnerability) but upheld the applicability of two others (gratification and abuse of trust) and the denial of alternative sentencing based on the seriousness of the multiple incestuous acts.

IncestSentencing HearingAlternative SentencingProbationEnhancement FactorsMitigating FactorsSexual OffenseAbuse of TrustPsychosexual EvaluationBipolar Disorder
References
28
Case No. E2019-01864-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2021

State of Tennesse v. Ronnie Lucas Wilson

The defendant, Ronnie Lucas Wilson, was convicted of multiple offenses, including felon in possession of a firearm and attempted first-degree murder, stemming from a high-speed chase and shooting incident involving a police officer. The jury also found that the offenses qualified as Criminal Gang Offenses due to his affiliation with the Aryan Nation gang, leading to enhanced sentences. On appeal, the court affirmed his convictions but vacated the jury's findings regarding the Criminal Gang Offenses Statute, citing insufficient evidence to establish a direct nexus between his actions and the gang's benefit. Consequently, the case was remanded for resentencing related to the attempted first-degree murder and firearm possession convictions, and judgments were modified to remove the gang offense designation. The effective fifty-eight-year sentence was upheld due to the defendant's extensive criminal history and the severity of the offenses, with individual sentences adjusted for the removed enhancement.

Criminal Gang OffensesFelon in Possession of FirearmAttempted First Degree MurderPolice Officer ShootingHigh-Speed ChaseEvading ArrestFalse ReportCriminal Gang EnhancementSentencing AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 640 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational