(DOWNLOAD) "Pelletier v. Zweifel" by Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Pelletier v. Zweifel
- Author : Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 29, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 131 KB
Description
This case presents three questions concerning application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant-appellant Ed Howard pled guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. Following Howards initial arrest for possession of two kilograms of cocaine, he agreed to cooperate with law enforcement officials by providing information concerning the ultimate destination of the cocaine found in his possession. Ultimately, Howards cooperation with law enforcement officials resulted in the arrest of six other individuals, and in the recovery of approximately two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in cash and property, along with several weapons. Howard challenges the district courts application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines on three grounds. First, Howard maintains that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level by three levels, under section 3B1.1 of the Guidelines, because he played an aggravating role in the offense. Second, Howard asserts that the district court erroneously increased his offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice, under section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines, for making allegedly false statements to a probation officer. And finally, Howard contends that the district court improperly denied him a two level decrease, under section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines, for acceptance of responsibility. Because we must defer to the factual findings of the district court in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court to increase Howards offense level by three levels for his aggravating role in the offense. Because we find that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Guidelines with respect to Howards alleged obstruction of justice, we REVERSE the two level increase under section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines. And because we conclude that the district courts refusal to award Howard a two level decrease for acceptance of responsibility was clearly erroneous, we REVERSE its application of section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.