United States v. Baird

Opinion

Opinions of the United

1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-7-1997

United States v. Baird Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-1342

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997

Recommended Citation "United States v. Baird" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 78. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/78

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

NO. 96-1342

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee

v.

JOHN BAIRD,

Appellant

__________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 95-cr-00092-1

__________________________________

Argued: November 6, 1996

Before: BECKER, McKEE, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

______________________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

______________________

The opinion filed in the above case on March 19, 1997 is

hereby amended as follows:

A new footnote shall be placed on p. 13 of the slip opinion,

just after the sentence that reads “To be related conduct, the

conduct need not, however, fit the definition of relevant conduct

under § 1B1.3,” which will read as follows: Our textual statement might appear inconsistent with the statement in United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1990) that “[o]ffense-related departures may consider only conduct that is relevant to the offense of conviction, within the limitation set forth in Guidelines § 1B1.3. See

2

id. § 5K2.0.” Id. at 1105 n.24. But that statement in Kikumura rests on language previously but no longer contained in § 5K2.0 stating that “[h]arms identified as a possible basis for departure from the guidelines should be taken into account only when they are relevant to the offense of conviction, within the limitations set forth in § 1B1.3.” However, a 1990 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines struck that language from § 5K2.0. See 1991 U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 358. The basis for the statement in Kikumura having been eliminated, the statement no longer has any force.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward R. Becker

__________________________

Edward R. Becker Circuit Judge

Dated: April 7, 1997