Seventh Circuit Week in Review, Part I: Sentencing Issues

The Seventh Circuit had a busy week, with seven new opinions in criminal cases.  In this post, I will discuss just the three cases that focused on sentencing issues; a later post will cover the other cases.

In United States v. Alldredge (No. 08-2076), the court considered the reach of §2B5.1(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which increases sentence length in counterfeiting cases if “any part of the offense was committed outside the United States.”  In return for forging forty checks for a Nigerian, Alldredge received $3,000 in fake currency from Canada.  She had not expected to receive fake currency, but decided to spend it anyway, resulting in her conviction for distributing counterfeit currency.  The district court increased her sentence based on the international dimension of the case.  However, as the Seventh Circuit (per Chief Judge Easterbrook) pointed out, none of Alldredge’s conduct occurred outside the United States, and the Guidelines generally make a defendant responsible only for the foreseeable conduct of others.  She did not anticipate that her international connections would provide her with counterfeit currency; indeed, she was in a sense a victim of their crime.  Bearing in mind that Alldredge was only convicted of distributing counterfeit currency (and not check forgery), no part of her offense was committed outside the United States, entitling her to a remand and resentencing.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review, Part I: Sentencing Issues

Should Immigration Service Employees Be “Looking for a Way to Approve” Petitions and Applications?

The answer is a resounding yes, according to this refreshingly outdated 1980 memo from INS Regional Director Durward E. Powell, Jr., regarding “Dispensing of Information and Adjudications Decision Making.”   

Powell admonishes employees that they should not consider themselves “guardians of the treasury of information on Immigration benefits, whose function is to dispense reluctantly that narrow portion of the treasury which relates to a specific inquiry.  Rather, all of us are, or should be, dispensers of total information, tailored to the entirety of each applicant’s situation. Tell them freely and openly not only what they are not eligible for but what they may be eligible for.”  

What an efficient and productive attitude for any agency employee toward her work. Some of the immigration agency employees I have encountered did seem to take this helpful stance, but others did not.  In fact, the same could be said about my encounters with DMV employees.

What are your thoughts? 

Thanks to Benders Immigration Bulletin Daily for the delightful link.

(Edit at 10:42 a.m.) As indicated in the comments below, Benders found this memo on the Nation of Immigrators blog.  The post, “New Year Resolutions for Immigration Officials,” is thoughtful and probably would interest anyone who is interested enough to be reading what I’ve written here.

Continue ReadingShould Immigration Service Employees Be “Looking for a Way to Approve” Petitions and Applications?

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Limiting the Reach of the Adam Walsh Act (a Little)

The Seventh Circuit had two new opinions in criminal cases this week.  The first, United States v. Sims (No. 07-3798), presented a routine Fourth Amendment issue, with the court upholding a challenged search warrant over the defendant’s objection that police officers failed to disclose important information when they obtained the warrant.

The more notable case of the two was United States v. Dixon (No. 08-1438), which considered the sex offender registration provisions of the Adam Walsh Act.  Passed in 2006, the Walsh Act did not invent sex offender registration (which was first done at the state level), but it did substantially increase federal regulation in the area.  Among the most controversial (and heavily litigated) features of the Walsh Act has been its creation of a new federal crime for sex offenders who cross state lines and fail to register in the new state.  Concerns focus on the retroactive reach of the new law, with some cases indicating that offenders can be punished on the basis of interstate travel that occurred prior to the statute’s enactment.

In Dixon, the Seventh Circuit took its turn grappling with the retroactivity issues.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Limiting the Reach of the Adam Walsh Act (a Little)