|
|
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
  
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Please please watch this before it's removed...again.
Who's the Virus?
I'm going to guess that no matter what you 'think' you think, you'll enjoy this video...forget that this man was just killed, watch it, get a sense of who he was and what he was doing...if you still consider him a 'virus' (as the democrat representatives in Oregon are calling him) then this discussion is mute, whether he was 'murdered' doesn't even matter...because our country isn't worth dying for any longer anyhow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 8:14 AM While at the vet yesterday, got to talking with the horseshoer there about this deal and government ownership of land. This is kind of eye opening about how people who don't really understand how things work can get things screwed up in their mind. He told me a story about how he used to go camping on BLM land between Cheyenne and Laramie with his horse and just have a real good time. Then, the Obama Administration sold off that land to two Denver millionaires and now they won't let anybody use that stuff anymore, and it was all Obama's fault that he couldn't have fun out there anymore. When I brought up the fact that that was exactly what the ranchers and militiamen (that he sympathizes with) wanted to happen, turning federal land that everybody could use into private or state run, he dropped the conversation. The ironic and sad part of the situation is that the people who are screaming the loudest about taking federal ground away from BLM and Forest Service control, are the ones that would be hurt the most by private or state ownership. If the land was sold, no small time rancher would be able to afford it, it would go to people like the Koch Brothers who own the Matador Ranch in Montana (300,000 plus acres and six federal allotments). If the state owns it, it would be mined and drilled and grazed into oblivion by the highest bidder, or should I say campaign donor, and those ranchers would be sol. If on the off chance they were able to secure the leases, the rental rates for state and private ground are one h.... Of a lot bigger than the federal $1.69 fee they pay now. But, on the bright side, the ranchers would be free to do whatever they wanted on their little private ranch that is too small to make a living on and with the loss of its federal leases, valueless. But again, they will be "free" to make their own decisions. My advice is be careful what you wish for.
THIS is what it's about...nothing else. Please watch it...30 minutes out of your life, it will shed light on the fight!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4
When we fall victim to lies it hurts everyone...most of this land out here that's considered 'public' is not habitable, can't be 'developed, mother nature made sure of that!
| |
| | |
  Semper Fi
  
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 9:30 AM musikmaker - 2016-01-30 9:01 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:52 AM The Hammonds were found guilty on two charges which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A judge took it upon himself to decrease the sentence because he did not think the punishment fit the crime, the sentence was appealed not re-tried, and the Hammonds were ordered back to jail to complete the original minimum sentence that they received when convicted. They now have a clemency request filed and don't want the militia screwing it up. They should have taken the plea deal that was offered to them if they didn't want to take the risk of going to jail. Maybe they should have got a better lawyer. Thousands of people are in jail in the US on mandatory minimums that don't fit the crime, and you guys need to ask yourself if you care about them, or just the Hammonds. I'm the 1st one who 'liked' this...lol.
It became obvious during this occupation that the Hammonds are NOT the only victims that people care about...
It's a lot more complicated than what you summarized...they were charged as 'terrorists', yet, the BLM has destroyed much more land, cattle and homes with 'accidental' fires and aren't held to the same standard, kinda like the EPA/mine spill that happened in Colorado last year...there's no accountability for them, but, they use these laws in 'their' courts that oppress the people and provide for a massive land grab that is not constitutional.
It's a very dangerous road we're traveling...mainly because 'he who controls the land' controls the masses. Our food, our resources...jobs, money...
We need to get rid of mandatory minimums asap...
Granted the mine fiasco was bad, but rather than lay all the blame on the person who was cleaning it up, certainly some of the blame should be laid at the doorstep of the millionaires who polluted then cut and run when the profit gave out, and the politicians who gave them free rein to do it. It's tempting for people to blame "the government" for all their problems. It's amazing if you think long enough how you can justify any action and lay blame on somebody else. Isn't the conservatives mantra "Personal Responsibility"? That is until it's personal and their responsibility (see Flint, MI water crisis ).
Are the 'Politicans' highlighted not part of Government? | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| We all digress. I have to go feed now, but I think people should look seriously at the rise of militia groups in this country. They profess a willingness to kill or be killed. It's dangerous, and certainly does not garner any sympathy from "the masses" for ranchers, who up until now have had some kind of mystic and romantic appeal in an old west kind of way. You can see by the absence of conservative media and political attention this time around that the armed westerners fighting for their constitutional right from the big bad government is so yesterday for them. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | NJJ - 2016-01-30 8:27 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 9:14 AM Bear - 2016-01-30 10:04 AM I'll tell you one thing. If you are going to act all militant and badass and insinuate you would rather go down in a blaze of glory than go to jail, and you get cornered by LEOs, following a dangerous high speed chase, unless you want to follow through with your expressed desire to die in a blaze of glory, you'd better keep your arms up. Those cops didn't have time to analyze the probability of a piece in his pocket, a holster on his hip, an itch in his armpit, a shoulder holster, or gas pains. The minute he dropped his hand, he embarked on a game of Russian Roulette, with only one empty chamber. Sounds like he was a good man who used terrible judgement. It doesn't matter why he dropped his hand and reached.....the moment he did, his fate was sealed. Exactly. And now the govt doesnt have to deal with him anymore and his family doesnt have him anymore. Who just won?
Please watch this...I'm going to share it and share it...watch to the end. Please!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 9:19 AM
ThreeCorners - 2016-01-30 9:06 AM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 8:52 AM The Hammonds were found guilty on two charges which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A judge took it upon himself to decrease the sentence because he did not think the punishment fit the crime, the sentence was appealed not re-tried, and the Hammonds were ordered back to jail to complete the original minimum sentence that they received when convicted. They now have a clemency request filed and don't want the militia screwing it up. They should have taken the plea deal that was offered to them if they didn't want to take the risk of going to jail. Maybe they should have got a better lawyer. Thousands of people are in jail in the US on mandatory minimums that don't fit the crime, and you guys need to ask yourself if you care about them, or just the Hammonds.
 They were charged and tried under a Terrorist law. Which carried a min. 5 year sentence. They were not charged and tried under a law for burning 100 some odd acres. Which was set as a back burn to protect their own ranch land that drifted onto BLM land.Yet, the BLM can burn hundreds of thousands of acres, plus cattle and homes and are not accountable at all.
You are right, they were tried under the terrorist law, but not before they were offered a plea deal that would have let them off with fines and probation. They chose a trial by their peers, which is how we do it in this country. Just like Finicum, they chose thir own path, and now they have to live with it.
WHY were they charged under a terrorist law? That question in and of it self has yet to be answered satisfactorily. Especially in light of the actions of The BLM in the same area! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 8:52 AM
The Hammonds were found guilty on two charges which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A judge took it upon himself to decrease the sentence because he did not think the punishment fit the crime, the sentence was appealed not re-tried, and the Hammonds were ordered back to jail to complete the original minimum sentence that they received when convicted. They now have a clemency request filed and don't want the militia screwing it up. They should have taken the plea deal that was offered to them if they didn't want to take the risk of going to jail. Maybe they should have got a better lawyer.
Thousands of people are in jail in the US on mandatory minimums that don't fit the crime, and you guys need to ask yourself if you care about them, or just the Hammonds.
Finney, you claim to be educated and intelligent......................Please describe the original purpose of 'The Militia'. Historically speaking of course. If you can. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 8:41 AM We all digress. I have to go feed now, but I think people should look seriously at the rise of militia groups in this country. They profess a willingness to kill or be killed. It's dangerous, and certainly does not garner any sympathy from "the masses" for ranchers, who up until now have had some kind of mystic and romantic appeal in an old west kind of way. You can see by the absence of conservative media and political attention this time around that the armed westerners fighting for their constitutional right from the big bad government is so yesterday for them.
The 'mystic appeal' is a live and well! Just like with the natives...lol. I can attest to that being in the hospitality industry.
Aside from that...it's not true that the western legislators have abandoned this, part of the problem is that we don't have the 'voice' in congress because we don't have the population! BECAUSE we can't 'grow' because the fed is claiming our land because...ugh.
The willingness to die is simple...it's not that anyone wants to die...it's that many, including me, feel that we'd rather die standing than on our knees begging. What does it teach our children if we're cowards? What happens when you're old and your grandchildren ask you about the stories of freedom while you're standing in the soup line and then ask why you laid down and didn't protect it for them?
"Give me liberty or give me death" is not a terrorist thought.
| |
| | |
 Fact Checker
Posts: 16572
Location: Displaced Iowegian | musikmaker - 2016-01-30 9:41 AM NJJ - 2016-01-30 8:27 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 9:14 AM Bear - 2016-01-30 10:04 AM I'll tell you one thing. If you are going to act all militant and badass and insinuate you would rather go down in a blaze of glory than go to jail, and you get cornered by LEOs, following a dangerous high speed chase, unless you want to follow through with your expressed desire to die in a blaze of glory, you'd better keep your arms up. Those cops didn't have time to analyze the probability of a piece in his pocket, a holster on his hip, an itch in his armpit, a shoulder holster, or gas pains. The minute he dropped his hand, he embarked on a game of Russian Roulette, with only one empty chamber. Sounds like he was a good man who used terrible judgement. It doesn't matter why he dropped his hand and reached.....the moment he did, his fate was sealed. Exactly. And now the govt doesnt have to deal with him anymore and his family doesnt have him anymore. Who just won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4
You can quit posting the d*mn video....I HAVE watched it......and it has nothing to do with my statement about sympathy OR what those men could have expected....... | |
| | |
Queen Bean of Ponyland
Posts: 24953
Location: WYOMING | musikmaker - 2016-01-30 10:41 AM
NJJ - 2016-01-30 8:27 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 9:14 AM Bear - 2016-01-30 10:04 AM I'll tell you one thing. If you are going to act all militant and badass and insinuate you would rather go down in a blaze of glory than go to jail, and you get cornered by LEOs, following a dangerous high speed chase, unless you want to follow through with your expressed desire to die in a blaze of glory, you'd better keep your arms up. Those cops didn't have time to analyze the probability of a piece in his pocket, a holster on his hip, an itch in his armpit, a shoulder holster, or gas pains. The minute he dropped his hand, he embarked on a game of Russian Roulette, with only one empty chamber. Sounds like he was a good man who used terrible judgement. It doesn't matter why he dropped his hand and reached.....the moment he did, his fate was sealed. Exactly. And now the govt doesnt have to deal with him anymore and his family doesnt have him anymore. Who just won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 Â
Its heartbreaking.
Its unfair.
Its maddening.
Being a marytr changes nothing. Most movements die with the marytr.
You can not unlawfully fight for what is right.
The ones who lost are his family and any change he could have spearheaded by staying alive.
Most people will only know him thru his unlawful occupation and lawful police shooting.
Edited by geronabean 2016-01-30 10:12 AM
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| MS2011 - 2016-01-30 9:32 AM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 9:30 AM musikmaker - 2016-01-30 9:01 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:52 AM The Hammonds were found guilty on two charges which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A judge took it upon himself to decrease the sentence because he did not think the punishment fit the crime, the sentence was appealed not re-tried, and the Hammonds were ordered back to jail to complete the original minimum sentence that they received when convicted. They now have a clemency request filed and don't want the militia screwing it up. They should have taken the plea deal that was offered to them if they didn't want to take the risk of going to jail. Maybe they should have got a better lawyer. Thousands of people are in jail in the US on mandatory minimums that don't fit the crime, and you guys need to ask yourself if you care about them, or just the Hammonds. I'm the 1st one who 'liked' this...lol.
It became obvious during this occupation that the Hammonds are NOT the only victims that people care about...
It's a lot more complicated than what you summarized...they were charged as 'terrorists', yet, the BLM has destroyed much more land, cattle and homes with 'accidental' fires and aren't held to the same standard, kinda like the EPA/mine spill that happened in Colorado last year...there's no accountability for them, but, they use these laws in 'their' courts that oppress the people and provide for a massive land grab that is not constitutional.
It's a very dangerous road we're traveling...mainly because 'he who controls the land' controls the masses. Our food, our resources...jobs, money...
We need to get rid of mandatory minimums asap...
 Granted the mine fiasco was bad, but rather than lay all the blame on the person who was cleaning it up, certainly some of the blame should be laid at the doorstep of the millionaires who polluted then cut and run when the profit gave out, and the politicians who gave them free rein to do it. It's tempting for people to blame "the government" for all their problems. It's amazing if you think long enough how you can justify any action and lay blame on somebody else. Isn't the conservatives mantra "Personal Responsibility"? That is until it's personal and their responsibility (see Flint, MI water crisis ).
Sorry for the length of this.
FindLawCaselawUnited StatesUS 9th Cir.UNITED STATES v. HAMMOND
UNITED STATES v. HAMMOND
ResetAAFont size:Print 69
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, PlaintiffâAppellant, v. Steven Dwight HAMMOND, DefendantâAppellee.
United States of America, PlaintiffâAppellant, v. Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., DefendantâAppellee.
Nos. 12â30337, 12â30339.
Decided: February 7, 2014
Before RICHARD C. TALLMAN and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENJ. MURPHY, III, District Judge.** Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant United States Attorney; S. Amanda Marshall, United States Attorney, District of Oregon, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffâAppellant. Lawrence H. Matasar, Lawrence Matasar, P.C., Portland, OR, for DefendantâAppellee Steven Dwight Hammond. Marc D. Blackman and Kendra M. Matthews, Ransom & Blackman, LLP, for DefendantâAppellee Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr.
OPINION
The government appeals the sentences of Steven and Dwight Hammond, whom a jury convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The convictions carried minimum sentences of five years of imprisonment, but citing Eighth Amendment concerns, the district court sentenced Steven to only twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to only three months of imprisonment. Because the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.
I. Background
The Hammonds have long ranched private and public land in Eastern Oregon. Although they lease public land for grazing, the Hammonds are not permitted to burn it without prior authorization from the Bureau of Land Management. Government employees reminded Steven of this restriction in 1999 after he started a fire that escaped onto public land.
But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set a fire on their property that spread to nearby public land. Although the Hammonds claimed that the fire was designed to burn off invasive species on their property, a teenage relative of theirs testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit matches on the ground so as to âlight up the whole country on fire.â And the teenager did just that. The resulting flames, which were eight to ten feet high, spread quickly and forced the teenager to shelter in a creek. The fire ultimately consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons.
In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.
The government ultimately prosecuted the Hammonds on charges related to these and other fires. After trial, the jury deliberated several hours and returned a partial verdict. The jury convicted Steven of two counts and Dwight of one count of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U .S.C. § 844(f)(1), based on their respective roles in the September 2001 and August 2006 fires. The jury also acquitted the Hammonds of some charges and failed to reach a verdict on others, including conspiracy charges brought against Steven and Dwight. The judge then instructed the jury to continue deliberating.
While the jury deliberated on the remaining charges, the parties reached an oral agreement and presented it to the court.1 The government told the court that the Hammonds had agreed to âwaive their appeal rightsââexcept with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel claimsââand accept the verdicts as they've been returned thus far by the jury.â In return, the government promised to ârecommendâ that Steven's sentences run concurrently and agreed that the Hammonds âshould remain released pending the court's sentencing decision.â
The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the âcase to be overâ and hoped to âbring th[e] matter to a close.â According to the defense, the âideaâ of the plea agreement was that the case would âbe done with at the sentencingâ and that the âparties would accept ¡ the sentence that's imposed.â The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.
At sentencing, the court found that the guidelines range for Steven was 8 to 14 months and for Dwight was 0 to 6 months. Yet their convictions carried five-year minimum terms of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The government accordingly recommended five-year sentences of imprisonment and arguedâboth in its sentencing memorandum and at sentencingâthat the court lacked discretion to impose lesser sentences.
The court, however, concluded that the Eighth Amendment required deviation from the statutory minimum. Observing that Congress probably had not intended for the sentence to cover fires in âthe wilderness,â the court reasoned that five-year sentences would be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the Hammonds' offenses. The court then sentenced Steven to two concurrent terms of twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to three months of imprisonment.
II. Standard of Review
We review both a waiver of appeal and the legality of a sentence de novo. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir .2007) (waiver of appeal); United States v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir.1991) (legality of a sentence).
III. Discussion
A. Waiver
A threshold issue is whether the government waived its right to appeal the Hammonds' sentences in the plea agreement or otherwise failed to preserve its objection. We find no grounds for dismissing the appeal.
The Hammonds first argue that the government waived its right to appeal in the plea agreement. Because a plea agreement is partly contractual in nature, we interpret it from the perspective of a reasonable defendant. See United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1337â38 (9th Cir.1993). But there is no ambiguity here to interpret. A reasonable defendant would expect that the absence of any statements on the government's right to appeal simply means that no waiver was contemplated. See United States v. Anderson, 921 F.2d 335, 337â38 (1st Cir.1990).
The Hammonds respond by arguing that the statements of defense counsel show that an all-around waiver of appellate rights was the sine qua non of the plea agreement. The record, however, belies that assertion. The statements made by defense counsel just before the judge accepted the plea agreement underscore that all parties sought to resolve the case swiftly, but finality was not the only benefit supporting the plea agreement. Other benefits included favorable recommendations from the government and the dismissal of charges. We thus cannot reasonably read defense counsels' references to finality as meaning that no party could take an appeal.
Assuming then that the plea agreement is silent on the government's right of appeal, the Hammonds urge us to imply a waiver into the plea agreement. We have never before done so. But relying on United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir.1991), the Hammonds argue that construing the government's silence as an implied waiver will promote fairness and finality. We reject that position.
The principles governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements leave no room for implied waivers. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, not the common law of contracts, governs the making of plea agreements. See United States v. Escamilla, 975 F.2d 568, 571 n.3 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. PartidaâParra, 859 F.2d 629, 634 (9th 1988). Although Rule 11 gives courts discretion to accept or reject a plea agreement, it does not authorize courts to remake a plea agreement or imply terms into one. See United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453, 455 (1985) (per curiam) (âRule 11[ ] ¡ speaks in terms of what the parties in fact agree to, and does not suggest that such implied-in-law terms as were read into this agreement by the Court of Appeals have any place under the rule.â); United States v. Stevens, 548 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir.1977) (observing that Congress rejected a version of Rule 11 that would have allowed a court to modify a plea agreement in favor of the defendant). We accordingly âenforce the literal termsâ of a plea agreement, construing only ambiguous language in the defendant's favor. United States v. FrancoâLopez, 312 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1134â35 (9th Cir.1999). These principles preclude us from implying a waiver where none exists.
Moreover, nothing in the nature of plea agreements requires that each promise must be âmatched against a mutual and âsimilarâ promise by the other side.â United States v. Hare, 269 F.3d 859, 861 (7th Cir.2001). To be sure, the idea behind a plea agreement is that each side waives certain rights to obtain some benefit. See PartidaâParra, 859 F.2d at 633. But there are ample reasons that a defendant might enter a plea agreement short of extinguishing the government's right to appeal, including the possibility of a lower sentence and the dismissal of other charges. Hare, 269 F.3d at 861; cf. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 (1970) (listing possible reasons for entering a plea). For example, the Hammonds negotiated for favorable recommendations from the government and the dismissal of charges. Such benefits are consideration enough to support a plea agreement. See Hare, 269 F.3d at 861â62.
Finally, contrary to the Hammonds' assertion, the record leaves no doubt that the government preserved the objection to the sentences that it raises on appeal. Nowhere did the government make a âstraightforwardâ concession. United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir.1991). Nor did the government fail to give the district court an opportunity to address the argument it raises on appeal. See United States v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691, 694â95 (9th Cir.2008). In its sentencing memorandum and at sentencing, the government argued that the trial judge lacked discretion to deviate from the statutory minimum. The government thus preserved its objection, and we may hear its appeal.
B. Sentences
Turning now to the merits, we hold that the district court illegally sentenced the Hammonds to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum. A minimum sentence mandated by statute is not a suggestion that courts have discretion to disregard. See United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1169â70 (9th Cir.2010). The court below was bound to sentence the Hammonds to five-year terms of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. 844(f)(1). Although the district court attempted to justify lesser sentences on Eighth Amendment grounds, sentencing the Hammonds to five years of imprisonment would not have been unconstitutional.
Rather than categorically challenge five-year sentences for arson, the Hammonds argue that the sentences would be constitutionally disproportionate âunder the unique facts and circumstances of this case.â We assess this type of Eighth Amendment challenge by âcompar[ing] the gravity of the offense to the severity of the sentence.â United States v. Williams, 636 F .3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2011) (citing Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 60 (2010)). Only in the ârare case in which this threshold comparison leads to an inference of gross disproportionality,â do we then âcompare the defendant's sentence with the sentences received by other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with the sentences imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions.â Graham, 560 U.S. at 60 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, we need not progress beyond the first step. Congress has âbroad authorityâ to determine the appropriate sentence for a crime and may justifiably consider arson, regardless of where it occurs, to be a serious crime. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983). Even a fire in a remote area has the potential to spread to more populated areas, threaten local property and residents, or endanger the firefighters called to battle the blaze. The September 2001 fire here, which nearly burned a teenager and damaged grazing land, illustrates this very point.
Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California's three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California's three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas's recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). And we and other courts have done the same. See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230â32 (10th Cir.2013) (upholding a 430âmonth sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir.2012) (upholding a 750âyear sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 280; United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212â13 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625â26 (8th Cir.2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building).
Because the district court erred by sentencing the Hammonds to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing in compliance with the law.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.
MURPHY, District Judge:
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656853.html#sthash.Ksmwy... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Finney, are You aware that 'the teenager' referenced in your post was discredited? For being mentally challenged?
And why were The Hammonds charged with Terrorism to begin with? Would you care to answer that? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | geronabean - 2016-01-30 10:09 AM
musikmaker - 2016-01-30 10:41 AM
NJJ - 2016-01-30 8:27 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 9:14 AM Bear - 2016-01-30 10:04 AM I'll tell you one thing. If you are going to act all militant and badass and insinuate you would rather go down in a blaze of glory than go to jail, and you get cornered by LEOs, following a dangerous high speed chase, unless you want to follow through with your expressed desire to die in a blaze of glory, you'd better keep your arms up. Those cops didn't have time to analyze the probability of a piece in his pocket, a holster on his hip, an itch in his armpit, a shoulder holster, or gas pains. The minute he dropped his hand, he embarked on a game of Russian Roulette, with only one empty chamber. Sounds like he was a good man who used terrible judgement. It doesn't matter why he dropped his hand and reached.....the moment he did, his fate was sealed. Exactly. And now the govt doesnt have to deal with him anymore and his family doesnt have him anymore. Who just won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 Â
Its heartbreaking.
Its unfair.
Its maddening.
Being a marytr changes nothing. Most movements die with the marytr.
You can not unlawfully fight for what is right.
The ones who lost are his family and any change he could have spearheaded by staying alive.
Most people will only know him thru his unlawful occupation and lawful police shooting.
Question: Do morals trump legality? I.E. Laws? Are Laws supposed to be moral? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | NJJ - 2016-01-30 9:04 AM musikmaker - 2016-01-30 9:41 AM NJJ - 2016-01-30 8:27 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 9:14 AM Bear - 2016-01-30 10:04 AM I'll tell you one thing. If you are going to act all militant and badass and insinuate you would rather go down in a blaze of glory than go to jail, and you get cornered by LEOs, following a dangerous high speed chase, unless you want to follow through with your expressed desire to die in a blaze of glory, you'd better keep your arms up. Those cops didn't have time to analyze the probability of a piece in his pocket, a holster on his hip, an itch in his armpit, a shoulder holster, or gas pains. The minute he dropped his hand, he embarked on a game of Russian Roulette, with only one empty chamber. Sounds like he was a good man who used terrible judgement. It doesn't matter why he dropped his hand and reached.....the moment he did, his fate was sealed. Exactly. And now the govt doesnt have to deal with him anymore and his family doesnt have him anymore. Who just won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4
Lmao...settle down!
I'm quite certain these men aren't after 'sympathy'...not really the 'way they roll'. See, there's nothing so 'mystic or romantic' about cowboys...unless you consider honesty, integrity and love of the land a 'mystic, romantic' quality.
They knew what they were/are up against, hence arming themselves! Gotta have that 2nd Amendment Right to Protect 1st, ya know?
It will be whatever it will be and we can't blame these guys for not trying...just the 'masses' for not 'getting it'.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| foundation horse - 2016-01-30 10:18 AM
Finney, are You aware that 'the teenager' referenced in your post was discredited? For being mentally challenged?
And why were The Hammonds charged with Terrorism to begin with? Would you care to answer that?
I read a reason but without taking time to look it up I can't give you a link. But when I read the piece to begin with, I remember thinking in my own mind that they probably charged them with that for one of two reasons, either they were tired of the arguments and threats that the article cited or they never wanted them to go to jail in the first place but wanted them to plea out if they knew they knew the would face five years jail time, or a combination of both. I'm not a lawyer or a mind reader so I don't know what either party was thinking. | |
| | |
Queen Bean of Ponyland
Posts: 24953
Location: WYOMING | foundation horse - 2016-01-30 11:20 AM
geronabean - 2016-01-30 10:09 AM
musikmaker - 2016-01-30 10:41 AM
NJJ - 2016-01-30 8:27 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 9:14 AM Bear - 2016-01-30 10:04 AM I'll tell you one thing. If you are going to act all militant and badass and insinuate you would rather go down in a blaze of glory than go to jail, and you get cornered by LEOs, following a dangerous high speed chase, unless you want to follow through with your expressed desire to die in a blaze of glory, you'd better keep your arms up. Those cops didn't have time to analyze the probability of a piece in his pocket, a holster on his hip, an itch in his armpit, a shoulder holster, or gas pains. The minute he dropped his hand, he embarked on a game of Russian Roulette, with only one empty chamber. Sounds like he was a good man who used terrible judgement. It doesn't matter why he dropped his hand and reached.....the moment he did, his fate was sealed. Exactly. And now the govt doesnt have to deal with him anymore and his family doesnt have him anymore. Who just won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 Â
Its heartbreaking.
Its unfair.
Its maddening.
Being a marytr changes nothing. Most movements die with the marytr.
You can not unlawfully fight for what is right.
The ones who lost are his family and any change he could have spearheaded by staying alive.
Most people will only know him thru his unlawful occupation and lawful police shooting.
Question: Do morals trump legality? I.E. Laws? Are Laws supposed to be moral?
Do I think its moral that a private company can take my land for their personal gain? No! But due to a pre WW 2 law its is legal for them to do so.
| |
| | |
 BHW's Lance Armstrong 
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | OregonBR - 2016-01-30 12:03 AM OregonBR - 2016-01-29 6:56 PM https://www.oathkeepers.org/video-of-lavoy-tinicums-death-released/ Enhanced video of the final moments of LaVoy Finicum's life. He put BOTH hands to his left hip. Why would a right handed man go to his left hip with both hands to draw a weapon they said was in his pocket? And that he never drew out of said pocket? Eyewitness account have him being shot repeatedly. You can see one time shot in the back and how many are from other angles. Please actually LOOK at the links and videos being supplied right there for you? This is the final few moments of LaVoy's life. Have you ever tried to reach into your left jacket pocket with your right hand? Can't be done. https://www.oathkeepers.org/video-of-lavoy-tinicums-death-released/[...
This is th epoint I was trying to make in my previous post. We do not know what was going on at ground level. We need to hear the video and see it close up.
Did law enforcement tell him to drop his weapon? We don't know.
What were they saying to him? What was he sayiong to them?
Why did they not have the dogs take him down?
They knew he was a constitutional student and was keeping the Feds from taking land and water. We need to see close up video and audio! | |
| | |
Fact Checker
Posts: 16572
Location: Displaced Iowegian | geronabean - 2016-01-30 10:45 AM foundation horse - 2016-01-30 11:20 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 10:09 AM musikmaker - 2016-01-30 10:41 AM NJJ - 2016-01-30 8:27 AM geronabean - 2016-01-30 9:14 AM Bear - 2016-01-30 10:04 AM I'll tell you one thing. If you are going to act all militant and badass and insinuate you would rather go down in a blaze of glory than go to jail, and you get cornered by LEOs, following a dangerous high speed chase, unless you want to follow through with your expressed desire to die in a blaze of glory, you'd better keep your arms up. Those cops didn't have time to analyze the probability of a piece in his pocket, a holster on his hip, an itch in his armpit, a shoulder holster, or gas pains. The minute he dropped his hand, he embarked on a game of Russian Roulette, with only one empty chamber. Sounds like he was a good man who used terrible judgement. It doesn't matter why he dropped his hand and reached.....the moment he did, his fate was sealed. Exactly. And now the govt doesnt have to deal with him anymore and his family doesnt have him anymore. Who just won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4
Its heartbreaking. Its unfair. Its maddening. Being a marytr changes nothing. Most movements die with the marytr. You can not unlawfully fight for what is right. The ones who lost are his family and any change he could have spearheaded by staying alive. Most people will only know him thru his unlawful occupation and lawful police shooting. Question: Do morals trump legality? I.E. Laws? Are Laws supposed to be moral? ? No! But due to a pre WW 2 law its is legal for them to do so.
A little off the track ...... but those on the Trump Band Wagon should read this from his interview with Fox......If Trump wants to build a hotel in your back yard....he thinks that he should be able to TAKE your back yard to make it happen.........
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/06/trump-eminent-domain-even-for-private-projects-is-wonderful-thing-youre-not-taking-property/
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | musikmaker - 2016-01-30 9:34 AM Please please watch this before it's removed...again.
Who's the Virus?
I'm going to guess that no matter what you 'think' you think, you'll enjoy this video...forget that this man was just killed, watch it, get a sense of who he was and what he was doing...if you still consider him a 'virus' (as the democrat representatives in Oregon are calling him) then this discussion is mute, whether he was 'murdered' doesn't even matter...because our country isn't worth dying for any longer anyhow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4
Thanks for posting this video! | |
| | |
Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | musikmaker - 2016-01-30 8:53 AM Im going to guess that no matter what you 'think' you think, you'll enjoy this video...forget that this man was just killed, watch it, get a sense of who he was and what he was doing...if you still consider him a 'virus' (as the democrat representatives in Oregon are calling him) then this discussion is mute, whether he was 'murdered' doesn't even matter...because our country isn't worth dying for any longer anyhow.
https://www.facebook.com/steve.worthington.5/videos/1107996929231308/?fref=nf
You found it!! YAY!! I had posted that video a few days ago and right after he was shot, it was gone!! Thankyou for finding and sharing it!! | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line