Fogbow

Fact: Sorcerers were forced out of their jobs when sentencing guidelines became a thing in state and federal courts. They and fortune tellers were quite busy before that trying to divine what a judge or jury might decide.

At least with guidelines you have formulas and can get mathematicians and accountants involved.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:16 am

Fact: Sorcerers were forced out of their jobs when sentencing guidelines became a thing in state and federal courts. They and fortune tellers were quite busy before that trying to divine what a judge or jury might decide.

At least with guidelines you have formulas and can get mathematicians and accountants involved.

You can have a raucous federal sentencing guidelines party (FSG rave) with mathematicians and accountants, though many respectable mathematicians and accountants say that they won't stand for this -- partly because it is a debasement of mathematics and accounting, but mostly because they don't get invited to those sort of parties.

I can make one prediction about the mythical FSG. No matter what I figure, it it will not only be wrong, it will be a fantastical failure.

If you fed the FSG to the 2nd greatest computer ever created, Deep Thought, it would tell you to f*** off.

I spent 20 cents of my free PACER bucks to find out when he will be sentenced.

Date Filed # Docket Text
08/17/2023 71 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Change of Plea as to Joshua A. Martinez held on 8/17/2023 before Judge Andrew P. Gordon. Crtrm Administrator: M. Johansen; AUSA: Daniel Schiess; Def Counsel: Joanne Diamond; Court Reporter/Recorder: Judy Moore; Time of Hearing: 9:59 a.m. - 10:29 a.m.; Courtroom: 6C;

The defendant is present and at liberty. On inquiry by the Court, the defendant withdraws his motion to suppress ECF No. 36 and motion to dismiss ECF No. 39 . The report and recommendation ECF No. 67 is deemed moot. Under oath, the defendant pleads GUILTY to count two of the criminal indictment and the plea agreement is filed. Court accepts the guilty plea. This matter is referred to the probation department for investigation and report. The trial setting as to this defendant is vacated. The defendant is continued on the present terms of release.

Sentencing and disposition set for 11/28/2023 at 01:30 PM in LV Courtroom 6C before Judge Andrew P. Gordon.

(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAJ) (Entered: 08/17/2023)

What's over/under that he breaks the plea agreement before sentencing?

He’s a poot

Rules do not apply to him in his mind

Sentencing hearing for joshy has been moved from Nov 28 to March 5, 2024.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60 ... -martinez/

Why so long???

He’s guilty

Drop the hammer!

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:08 pm Why so long???

He’s guilty

Drop the hammer!

My dad would have said, lock him up and throw away the key.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:08 pm Why so long???

He’s guilty

Drop the hammer!

I'm guessing his public defenders are quite busy with other cases. The U.S. attorneys are okay with it so joshy must be behaving. But still...

Probably worth updating this, and probably worth mentioning why.

Martinez' sentencing has been repeatedly pushed down the road. It's currently set for September 17th, 2024.

This is, surprisingly, for a very good reason.

In a relatively recent Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Supreme Court completely reworked the test for deciding whether gun regulations are constitutional. Explaining the whole thing is a bit beyond my pay grade. Suffice it to say that a fair number of laws that would have previously been held consitutional probably now wouldn't be. And the lower courts are still trying to figure out exactly what the flark that means, especially when it comes to the felon-in-possession statutes that Martinez was convicted of.

And in particular, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in in a followup case, United States of America v. Steven Duarte, AKA Shorty, 22-50048, that the felon-in-possession statute was unconstitutional under Bruen when it's applied to someone convicted of only nonviolent crimes.

The normal cite for that case would be US v. Duarte, but darn it, any case with "Shorty" in the caption deserves to be cited in full.

Anyway, diminutive nicknames aside, the latest sentencing-punting order in Martinez' case puts the result well: "Like Duarte, Mr. Martinez has no violent prior convictions. As such, the Court’s opinion calls into question the validity of Mr. Martinez’s conviction. The government has filed for rehearing in Duarte. Whether it will remain good law is uncertain. At this stage, defense counsel would be ineffective if she allowed Mr. Martinez to proceed to his sentencing when the constitutionality of his offense of conviction is in flux."

KickahaOta wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 12:54 pm The normal cite for that case would be US v. Duarte, but darn it, any case with "Shorty" in the caption deserves to be cited in full.

No updates on the docket on his State case since March 12 when he was supposed to have a status hearing and it was continued.