United States v. Carl Jennings and John Stepp

96 F.3d 799, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24794
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 10, 1996
Docket95-3317, 95-3318
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 96 F.3d 799 (United States v. Carl Jennings and John Stepp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Carl Jennings and John Stepp, 96 F.3d 799, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24794 (6th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

ORDER

Before: KENNEDY and MOORE, Circuit Judges; and WELLS, * District Judge.

Carl Jennings filed a petition for rehearing and John Stepp filed a petition for rehearing *800 en banc of the court’s opinion of May 8, 1996 affirming their convictions and sentences.

The petition for rehearing en bane having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and no judge of this court having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc have been referred to the original panel.

The panel has further reviewed the petitions. After careful consideration, the panel concludes that it did not misapprehend or overlook any point of law or fact in its decision but that its clarity would be improved by the addition of the following footnote at the end of the last paragraph of Section II.D.

On remand, sentencing Jennings to .the same term but without language of “upward departure,” the District Court’s judgment would reflect a total offense level of 34 as to all counts which, with a Criminal History Category III, would result in a maximum sentence of 235 months. Under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(b), the court would impose concurrent sentences of 235 months on each of counts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and a concurrent sentence of 120 months on count 4.

Accordingly, the petitions are therefore DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Romaya v. MacLaren
E.D. Michigan, 2022
United States v. Michael Norwood
49 F.4th 189 (Third Circuit, 2022)
United States v. Miller
594 F.3d 172 (Third Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Jones
78 F. App'x 844 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Ernesto Quintieri, Carlo Donato
306 F.3d 1217 (Second Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Ronald Harris
237 F.3d 585 (Sixth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. D'Armond
80 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Kansas, 1999)
United States v. Willie Watkins
179 F.3d 489 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. James E. Campbell
168 F.3d 263 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Dighera
2 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (D. Kansas, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F.3d 799, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carl-jennings-and-john-stepp-ca6-1996.