invoking the five-factor concurrent sentence doctrine analysis identified in Vargas in the context of a petition for habeas relief
How later courts described this case
- invoking the five-factor concurrent sentence doctrine analysis identified in Vargas in the context of a petition for habeas relief
- Appellate court may decline to review "a conviction for which an appellant's sentence runs concurrently with that for another, valid conviction" where the government demonstrates that the "risk of collateral consequence is too slight to justify review."
- considering the effect on parole as one potential collateral consequence counseling against application of the concurrent-sentence doctrine
- substantive and conspiracy convictions affirmed despite challenge to Pinkerton instruction, Can-tone distinguished because “evidence [in Cantone] insufficient to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOORE, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the majority’s conclusion “Judgment affirmed on both counts”. In reaching this result, I find it unnecessary to participate in so much of the opinion as is contained in the section entitled “THE ‘CONCURRENT SENTENCE’ DOCTRINE” and the five hypothetical situations posed therein.