holding that district courts retained the power to order residence at a community corrections facility as a condition of release
How later courts described this case
- holding that district courts retained the power to order residence at a community corrections facility as a condition of release
- comparing the absence of the term “material” in Application Note 4(c) with the use of the term in another Application Note
- affirming one-hundred-and-eight months’ imprisonment where corrections officer convinced inmates to attack other prisoner
- discussing the changes wrought by the passage of the act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the discussion of community service in Section II.A of the court’s opinion.
As to the sentence, it is clear that the jury in its guilty verdict accepted the testimony of several witnesses, including Wright, Loftis and Goolsby, that Gilpatrick obstructed justice by procuring a false statement and organized the violent assault in which Wright, Mullins, Grigg, Lof-tis and Goolsby, wittingly or unwittingly, acted as participants. Hence, the enhancements are based on the jury’s verdict and not on facts found de novo by the sentencing judge. The sentence, therefore, does not violate the Blakely-Booker-Cunningham line of cases which foreclose judicial fact findings outside the jury verdict that increase the Guideline offense level.