U.S. v. Magluta
| Decision Date | 17 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | 98-4024,Nos. 98-4023,s. 98-4023 |
| Parties | (11th Cir. 2000) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALVADOR MAGLUTA, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D. C. Docket Nos. 96-00341-CR-JAL & 97-00102-CR.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before BIRCH and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and MILLS*, Senior District Judge.
Magluta was convicted and sentenced for illegally possessing various false identification documents--18 U.S.C. 1028, 1425, 1542, 1546, and 42 U.S.C. 408--and for failure to appear in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3146. Magluta appealed his conviction in the false identification case, and the sentences received in both cases.
We previously affirmed the conviction in the false identification case, but remanded for re-sentencing in both cases. See United States v. Magluta, 198 F.3d 1265, (11th Cir. 1999). Before the opinion was issued, Magluta moved to withdraw all issues relating to the sentence he received in the false identification case, rendering portions of our opinion moot. The court allowed Magluta to withdraw the issues. Based on that ground, the government now moves for rehearing in order for the Court to vacate the portions of the opinion which relate to the discussion of the withdrawn issues.
The government's petition is granted. The Court vacates section IV. B (pages 13-31 of the slip opinion) of its previous opinion in this case.
Magluta also petitions for rehearing and/or clarification with regard to this Court's review of the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 2J1.6. He requests that the Court review the district court's application under the de novo review and not the more exacting "plain error" review. Alternatively, he requests a clarification that he be allowed to argue on remand the subsequent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment 579, that clarifies the application of 2J1.6.
To the extent Magluta seeks a de novo review of the district court's application of 2J1.6, the petition is denied. However, since the applicable sentencing guideline has been amended to clarify the issue after the district court imposed sentence, the district court is directed to follow the amended application note. To that extent, Magluta's petition for clarification is granted.
The case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Townes v. State
...error is not ‘plain’ or ‘obvious' if there is no precedent directly resolving an issue."), vacated in part on unrelated grounds, 203 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.2000). Whether error resulted from the prosecutor's comment "is an issue of first impression and thus not properly before this Court for p......
-
Lane v. State
...error is not "plain" or "obvious" if there is no precedent directly resolving an issue.’), vacated in part on unrelated grounds, 203 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2000). Whether error resulted from the prosecutor's comment ‘is an issue of first impression and thus not properly before this Court for ......
-
Hankins v. Lyght
... ... relevant statutory language, the RFRA must be deemed the full expression of Congress's intent with regard to the religion-related issues before us and displace earlier judge-made doctrines that might have been used to ameliorate the ADEA's impact on religious organizations and activities. City ... ...
-
Petruska v. Gannon University, 05-1222.
... ... This case requires us to determine the reach of the ministerial exception in this Circuit ... We adopt a carefully tailored version of the ministerial ... ...
-
Benton C. Martin, Protecting Preachers from Prejudice: Methods for Improving Analysis of the Ministerial Exception to Title Vii
...there is a sufficiently intrusive investigation by a government entity into a church's employment of its clergy."). 178 See Gellington, 203 F.3d at 1304. 179 521 U.S. 203, 233 (1997). 180 Id. 181 See Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1......