Religions > Atheism > Pat Robertson: Mendacious Prevaricating Kaldissembler or Lying Christian Scum ? <= what's the difference?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
" \- Prof. Jonezİ" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2005 04:01:10 PM |
| Object: |
Pat Robertson: Mendacious Prevaricating Kaldissembler or Lying Christian Scum ? <= what's the difference? |
Pat Robertson: Mendacious Prevaricating Kaldissembler or Lying Christian Scum ?
<= what's the difference?
(CNN) -- Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday
for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during
Monday's broadcast of his "700 Club" program.
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement,"
he said in a written statement.
Earlier, Robertson said that his remarks about Chavez were taken out of context
and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.'
And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a
number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was
misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time,"
Robertson said on "The 700 Club." (Watch video)
The controversy began Monday when Robertson called Chavez "a terrific danger"
bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas. (Full
story)
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go
ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting
a war." (Watch Robertson's comments)
.
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 11:24:58 AM |
|
|
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to
go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than
starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Olsen" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 11:23:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:24:58 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to
go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than
starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
You see nothing wrong with a well known religious leader advocating
the murder of the democratically elected leader of another country?
That's pathetic.
-----
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Emerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "forevernitefan" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
27 Aug 2005 06:54:30 AM |
|
|
If the roles were reversed and a Muslim or similar was calling for
their government-sponsored assasination of the President of the USA, I
think the defenders of Robertson's lunacy would have a very different
tune.
Unless OC the President is a Democrat.
Correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't Robertson a few year sgo
supporting a Christian doctator of a South African country who was
slaughteirng people?
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
:" a vampire cop? REALLY?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
27 Aug 2005 07:05:50 AM |
|
|
forevernitefan wrote:
If the roles were reversed and a Muslim or similar was calling for
their government-sponsored assasination of the President of the USA, I
think the defenders of Robertson's lunacy would have a very different
tune.
Unless OC the President is a Democrat.
Correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't Robertson a few year sgo
supporting a Christian doctator of a South African country who was
slaughteirng people?
You're referring to Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, with whom Robertson
worked out a deal regarding diamonds. It was learned that PR used his
Operation Blessing planes to transport supplies to and from his mines.
.
|
|
|
| User: "forevernitefan" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
27 Aug 2005 07:16:13 AM |
|
|
Yeah, that's probably it. I did remember reading that Roberston
supported a Christian dictator in exchange for a deal regarding
diamond mines. I just find it typical of self-righteous, posturing
Christians like Robertson to show a lack of ethics and moral foundation
when it suits themselves.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
:" a vampire cop? REALLY?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 11:51:03 AM |
|
|
Rob Olsen wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to
go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper
than starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
You see nothing wrong with a well known religious leader advocating the
murder
I didn't say that. Personally, I think it would be an unwise and ill-advised
move at this point. Such an action should be considered only in the most
extreme of circumstances, and in all other cases dismissed out of hand.
Moreover, I don't believe that a man of God should be making statements such
as this.
But, nevertheless, Pat Robertson has a right to his own opinion, and also to
express it.
of the democratically elected leader of another country?
So when is this democratically elected leader up for re-election?
That's pathetic.
What's pathetic, I submit, is jumping to unwarranted conclusions without
having any basis to do so.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonezİ" |
|
| Title: Re: Kaldistorted promotes Felonious Acts by Religious Nutters! |
26 Aug 2005 02:20:41 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Rob Olsen wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we
really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday.
"It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
You see nothing wrong with a well known religious leader advocating
the murder
I didn't say that. Personally, I think it would be an unwise and
ill-advised move at this point. Such an action should be considered
only in the most extreme of circumstances, and in all other cases
dismissed out of hand.
Moreover, I don't believe that a man of God should be making
statements such as this.
But, nevertheless, Pat Robertson has a right to his own opinion, and
also to express it.
Wrong again Kaldisingenuous.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 878
§ 878. Threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, or
internationally protected persons
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to violate section 112, 1116, or
1201 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both, except that imprisonment for a threatened assault shall not exceed three
years.
(b) Whoever in connection with any violation of subsection (a) or actual
violation of section 112, 1116, or 1201 makes any extortionate demand shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(c) For the purpose of this section "foreign official", "internationally
protected person", "national of the United States", and "official guest" shall
have the same meanings as those provided in section 1116 (a) of this title.
(d) If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an internationally
protected person outside the United States, the United States may exercise
jurisdiction over the offense if
(1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United
States,
(2) an offender is a national of the United States, or
(3) an offender is afterwards found in the United States. As used in this
subsection, the United States includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the
United States including any of the places within the provisions of sections 5
and 7 of this title and section 46501 (2) of title 49.
of the democratically elected leader of another country?
So when is this democratically elected leader up for re-election?
That's pathetic.
What's pathetic, I submit, is jumping to unwarranted conclusions
without having any basis to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 04:07:34 PM |
|
|
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Rob Olsen wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought
to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot
cheaper than starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
You see nothing wrong with a well known religious leader advocating the
murder
I didn't say that. Personally, I think it would be an unwise and ill-
advised move at this point. Such an action should be considered only in
the most extreme of circumstances, and in all other cases dismissed out of
hand.
Moreover, I don't believe that a man of God should be making statements
such as this.
But, nevertheless, Pat Robertson has a right to his own opinion, and also
to express it.
Wrong again Kaldisingenuous.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 878
§ 878. Threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, or
internationally protected persons
There was no veritable threat here. Robertson merely stated what he thinks
should happen. He has no power to carry it out, therefore this wasn't any
threat.
But I was _RIGHT_! You _DO_ oppose free speech.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonezİ" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 05:05:34 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Rob Olsen wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we
really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday.
"It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
You see nothing wrong with a well known religious leader
advocating the murder
I didn't say that. Personally, I think it would be an unwise and
ill- advised move at this point. Such an action should be
considered only in the most extreme of circumstances, and in all
other cases dismissed out of hand.
Moreover, I don't believe that a man of God should be making
statements such as this.
But, nevertheless, Pat Robertson has a right to his own opinion,
and also to express it.
Wrong again Kaldisingenuous.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 878
§ 878. Threats and extortion against foreign officials, official
guests, or internationally protected persons
There was no veritable threat here. Robertson merely stated what he
thinks should happen. He has no power to carry it out, therefore
this wasn't any threat.
Try making the same statements about G W Bu$h and find out.
But I was _RIGHT_! You _DO_ oppose free speech.
As usual, you were dead wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonezİ" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 02:08:28 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really
ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole
lot cheaper than starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
Tuesday, June 24th, 2003
S.C. Man Charged with Threatening the President's Safety For Holding Protest
Sign
Brett Bursey goes on trial today for simply holding a sign that read "No War For
Oil" outside a President Bush speech last October. Bursey is being charged with
the federal crime of threatening the president's safety.
He is believed to be the first protester to ever be arrested on these charges
for simply holding a sign.
He faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 04:02:04 PM |
|
|
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to
go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper
than starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
Tuesday, June 24th, 2003
That was over 2 year ago. What was the disposition of this case?
S.C. Man Charged with Threatening the President's Safety For Holding
Protest Sign
Brett Bursey goes on trial today for simply holding a sign that read "No
War For Oil" outside a President Bush speech last October. Bursey is being
charged with the federal crime of threatening the president's safety.
Methinks there is more to this story than meets the eye. Scenario: The man
holds a sign and shouts threats. He gets arrested for shouting the threats
and mendacious prevaricators assert that it was because he was holding the
sign. That's how I see things.
He is believed to be the first protester to ever be arrested on these
charges for simply holding a sign. He faces six months in jail and a
$5,000 fine.
So has he done his time and paid his fine by now?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonezİ" |
|
| Title: Re: JONEZY OPPOSES FREE SPEECH!!! |
26 Aug 2005 05:10:06 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we
really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday.
"It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
The man's just stating his opinion. What's wrong with that?
Tuesday, June 24th, 2003
That was over 2 year ago. What was the disposition of this case?
S.C. Man Charged with Threatening the President's Safety For Holding
Protest Sign
Brett Bursey goes on trial today for simply holding a sign that
read "No War For Oil" outside a President Bush speech last October.
Bursey is being charged with the federal crime of threatening the
president's safety.
Methinks there is more to this story than meets the eye. Scenario:
The man holds a sign and shouts threats. He gets arrested for
shouting the threats and mendacious prevaricators assert that it was
because he was holding the sign. That's how I see things.
Translation: Ted fabricates facts not in evidence to support his
erroneous prejudices.
He is believed to be the first protester to ever be arrested on
these charges for simply holding a sign. He faces six months in
jail and a $5,000 fine.
So has he done his time and paid his fine by now?
CAROLYN KAY POFF, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 90-7847
In The Supreme Court Of The United States
October Term, 1990
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Seventh Circuit
Brief For The United States In Opposition
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 2-9) is reported at
926 F.2d 588. The opinion of the district court (Pet. App. 14-27) is
reported at 723 F. Supp. 79.
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the en banc court of appeals was entered on
February 14, 1991. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on
April 29, 1991. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28
U.S.C. 1254(1).
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the offense of threatening the President, in violation of
18 U.S.C. 871, which qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the
career offender provisions of Sentencing Guidelines Sections 4B1.1 and
4B1.2, may also qualify as a "non-violent offense" grounding a
downward departure under Sentencing Guideline Section 5K2.13, Policy
Statement.
STATEMENT
After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, petitioner was convicted on six counts
of threatening the President, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 871. She was
sentenced to a total term of 51 months' imprisonment, to be followed
by a three-year term of supervised release. The court of appeals
affirmed. Pet. App. 2-9.
1. The evidence at trial showed that in 1988 petitioner wrote a
series of letters threatening the life of President Reagan. Pet. App.
3, 14. Petitioner had a lengthy history of treatment for mental
illness. After the trial, on petitioner's motion, the district court
therefore ordered that she be given a psychiatric evaluation under 18
U.S.C. 4244 and 4247. The doctors' report stated "that while
(petitioner) suffers from recurrent major depression, she is not in
need of custody for care and treatment." Pet. App. 14.
The Presentence Report prepared by the probation officer listed
petitioner's four previous felony convictions: a 1970 state
conviction for making a bomb threat, a 1973 state conviction for the
same offense, a 1976 state conviction for arson, and a 1978 federal
conviction for making threatening communications. Pet. App. 15-17;
Gov't C.A. Br. 7. /1/ In view of the applicable career offender
provisions of Sentencing Guidelines Sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2, /2/ and
petitioner's criminal record, the probation officer recommended that
petitioner should be classified as a career offender (offense level
17, criminal history Category VI) and sentenced within the Guidelines
range of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment.
At sentencing, the government agreed with the probation officer's
recommendation that petitioner be sentenced as a career offender.
Pet. App. 17-18. Petitioner, on the other hand, argued that "a 'crime
of violence' must involve more than bizarre threats that were never
intended to be carried out" (Pet. App. 20-21) -- her description of
the instant offense of conviction and the two eligible prior offenses.
See note 1, supra. In the alternative, petitioner urged the court to
grant a downward departure under Sentencing Guideline Section 5K2.13,
Policy Statement, which provides (emphasis added):
If the defendant committed a non-violent offense while suffering
from significantly reduced mental capacity not resulting from
voluntary use of drugs or other intoxicants, a lower sentence
may be warranted to reflect the extent to which reduced mental
capacity contributed to the commission of the offense, provided
that the defendant's criminal history does not indicate a need
for incarceration to protect the public.
Pet. App. 21.
2. The district court rejected petitioner's submission and
sentenced her as a career offender under Sentencing Guidelines
Sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. Pet. App. 14-27. Nonetheless, "(b)ecause
(petitioner) apparently had no intention of carrying out the threats
she made to the President (and, indeed, apparently had no intention of
carrying out the threats she made in the cases that make her a career
offender)," the court "impose(d) a sentence at the low end of the
guideline range, or fifty-one months." Id. at 25.
The court first determined that Sentencing Guidelines Sections
4B1.1 and 4B1.2, by incorporating the definition set forth in 18
U.S.C. 16, "directs the inquiry to the elements of the crime." Pet.
App. 19. Turning to petitioner's pertinent criminal record, the court
pointed out that "(e)ach of the relevant statutes(, i.e., 18 U.S.C.
871(a), 876; Ind. Code Section 35-30-9-2,) requires the threatened
use of physical force against another's person or property." Pet. App.
19; see note 1, supra. The court therefore concluded that "(e)ach of
(petitioner's) pertinent crimes of conviction had 'as an element the .
.. . threatened use of physical force against the person or property of
another.'" Pet. App. 20 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 16(a)). In so holding, the
court rejected petitioner's contention that her predicate offenses
were not crimes of violence since they did not involve any actual
physical injury. "Rightly or wrongly," the court stated, "Congress
included offenses that require the threatened use of force." Pet. App.
21.
The court next refused to depart downward from the career offender
Guidelines range under Sentencing Guideline Section 5K2.13, Policy
Statement. It acknowledged that petitioner "clearly is a woman with
substantial medical difficulties." Pet. App. 22. /3/ The court
concluded, however, that
departure would be improper under Section 5K2.13 because that
policy statement is inapplicable by its own terms. Section
5K2.13 speaks of "a non-violent offense." As discussed above,
the offense of threatening the life of the President is a crime
of violence within the meaning of the Sentencing Guidelines; it
does not appear that the Sentencing Commission intended
"non-violent" offenses within the meaning of Section 5K2.13 to
encompass crimes "of violence" within the meaning of Sections
4B1.1 and 4B1.2.
Pet. App. 22-23. /4/
3. The en banc court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1-9. In the
court of appeals, petitioner contended that the career offender
provisions of the Guidelines "did not apply to her since all concede
that she never intended to carry out her threats." Id. at 3. The
court rejected that argument, explaining that
the Guidelines do not condition application of the enhancement
on whether the defendant intended to make good on the threat.
Threats are themselves a form of violence that "may be costly
and dangerous to society in a variety of ways, even when their
authors have no intention of carrying them out."
Ibid. (quoting Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 46-47 (1975)
(Marshall, J., concurring)). The court therefore held that Sentencing
Guideline Section 4B1.2 "defines (petitioner's) crime as one 'of
violence.'" Pet. App. 4. /5/
For similar reasons, the court of appeals upheld the trial court's
refusal to depart downward from the career offender Guidelines range
by treating petitioner's offense of conviction as "non-violent" under
Sentencing Guideline Section 5K2.13, Policy Statement. As the court
explained:
We think it likely that had the Commission desired to
distinguish among types of violence, it would have expanded its
vocabulary. At a minimum, it would have offered a technical
definition for each term. Perhaps a cross-reference between the
two sections would have eliminated any possibility of confusion,
but hindsight is a demanding critic. It is hardly surprising
that the Commission failed to foresee the argument that a crime
of violence can, under the same sentencing scheme, also be a
non-violent offense.
Pet. App. 5. The court also pointed out that a career offender such
as petitioner cannot meet Section 5K2.13's additional requirement that
"the defendant's criminal history does not indicate a need for
incarceration to protect the public." Pet. App. 5.
Judge Easterbrook, joined by four judges, dissented. Pet. App.
6-9. He agreed that "(t)hreatening public officials is a 'crime of
violence' for purposes of the career offender guideline." Id. at 7.
Nonetheless, he pointed out that "(a) 'non-violent offense' in
ordinary legal (and lay) understanding is one in which mayhem did not
occur." Ibid. In Judge Easterbrook's view,
the reasons behind Section 5K2.13 combine with the presumption
that different terms in a carefully drafted code such as the
guidelines connote different things to lead (him) to conclude
that "non-violent offense" refers to crime that in the event did
not entail violence.
Pet. App. 8-9. Accordingly, "(w)hether to use the power under Section
5K2.13 is the judge's decision. (The court) ought to say that he
possesses the discretion to decide." Pet. App. 9.
ARGUMENT
Petitioner contends (Pet. 5-7) that the offense of threatening the
President, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 871, which qualifies as a "crime
of violence" under the career offender provisions of Sentencing
Guidelines Sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2, may also qualify as a
"non-violent offense" grounding a downward departure under Sentencing
Guideline Section 5K2.13, Policy Statement. The Sentencing Commission
used the root word "violence" in both Section 4B1.2 ("crime of
violence") and Section 5K2.13 ("non-violent offense"). As the court
of appeals noted, a "'rather heavy load rests on him who would give
different meanings to the same word or the same phrase when used a
plurality of times in the same Act . . . .'" Pet. App. 4 (quoting
United States v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 150 F.2d 369, 377 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 324 U.S. 858 (1945)). At the very least, the Commission
would have provided some indication that the words "violence" and
"non-violent" were not mutually exclusive had that been its intent.
For these reasons, every court of appeals to consider petitioner's
claim has rejected it. See United States v. Sanchez, No. 90-10214
(9th Cir. May 15, 1991), slip op. 6185-6186; United States v.
Russell, 917 F.2d 512, 517 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct.
1427 (1991); United States v. Borrayo, 898 F.2d 91, 94 (9th Cir.
1989); United States v. Rosen, 896 F.2d 789, 791 (3d Cir. 1990);
United States v. Maddalena, 893 F.2d 815, 819 (6th Cir. 1989). /6/
Under the circumstances, further review of petitioner's claim is
unwarranted. See Braxton v. United States, No. 90-5358 (May 28,
1991), slip op. 4.
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
KENNETH W. STARR
Solicitor General
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
Assistant Attorney General
ANDREW LEVCHUK
Attorney
JUNE 1991
/1/ In 1973, petitioner had been convicted in Indiana state court
of making a telephonic threat of an explosion, in violation of Ind.
Code Section 35-30-9-2 (repealed 1977). That offense made criminally
liable any person who
telephones another person and threatens to create an explosion,
or falsely informs that some other person threatens or intends
to create an explosion, in any private or public building * * *.
In 1978, petitioner had been convicted in federal court of making
threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876. That
offense made criminally liable any person who
knowingly deposits in any post office or authorized depository
for mail matter * * * any communication with or without a name
or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other
person and containing any threat to injure the person or the
address or another * * *.
Petitioner's 1970 and 1976 convictions fell outside the time
periods established by the Sentencing Guidelines, and thus could not
be considered in calculating petitioner's criminal history category or
career offender status. See Sentencing Guidelines Sections 4A1.2(e),
4B1.2, Application Note 4; Pet. App. 15-16, 19.
/2/ The pre-1990 version of the career offender provisions of
Sentencing Guidelines Sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2 (1988), provided in
pertinent part:
Section 4B1.1. Career Offender
A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at
least eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense, (2)
the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, and (3) the
defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. * * *
Section 4B1.2. Definitions
(1) The term "crime of violence" as used in this provision is
defined under 18 U.S.C. Section 16.
* * * * *
Title 18, United States Code, Section 16, defined the term "crime
of violence" to include
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of physical force against the person or
property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its
nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against
the person or property of another may be used in the course of
committing the offense.
The current version of the career offender provision of Sentencing
Guideline Section 4B1.1 (1990) is identical to its predecessor. The
Sentencing Commission, however, has since amended the definitional
provision of Sentencing Guideline Section 4B1.2(1). Effective
November 1, 1989, this Guideline provides that
(1) The term "crime of violence" means any offense under
federal or state law punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year that --
(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person of another, or
(ii) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves
use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a
serious potential risk of physical injury to another.
Sentencing Guideline Section 4B1.2(1) (1990).
/3/ The court did point out that "(t)hose difficulties have not
been disabling; (petitioner) has managed to come within a few hours
of a college degree in criminology, largely with high grades." Pet.
App. 22.
/4/ The court added that petitioner's "long history of criminal
activity similar to that for which she was convicted strongly suggests
that incarceration may be necessary to protect the public." Pet. App.
23. But the court gave "little weight" to that consideration, noting
that petitioner "can write threatening letters, if inclined to do so,
from within prison as well as from without." Ibid.
/5/ Petitioner has not sought further review of that issue.
/6/ Moreover, a career offender such as petitioner fails by
definition to meet Section 5K2.13's requirement that "the defendant's
criminal history does not indicate a need for incarceration to protect
the public."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
