United States v. Rutherford

99 F. App'x 738
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 3, 2004
DocketNo. 02-2454
StatusPublished

This text of 99 F. App'x 738 (United States v. Rutherford) 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. Rutherford, 99 F. App'x 738 (6th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bradley Rutherford appeals the district court’s decision not to apply the Sentencing Guidelines’s “safety valve” provision to reduce his offense level. We affirm.

Our review de novo leads us to conclude Rutherford failed to meet his § 5C1.2(a)(3) burden to show the offense did not result in serious bodily injury to “any person.” As a result of committing the offense, Rutherford experienced life-threatening injuries, including ten days he spent in a coma. Under the plain language of the Guidelines, the offense resulted in serious bodily injury to “any person.” The district court concluded correctly that Rutherford could not prove his eligibility for the safety valve and we affirm that decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 F. App'x 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rutherford-ca6-2004.