New York Immigration Lawyers

Home ›› Court Opinions Topics & Themes   Asset Forfeitures   Conspiracy   Drug Policy Opinion   Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects   First Amendment   Justiciability   Medicinal Marijuana   Policy Considerations   Proportionality   Reasonable Expectation of Privacy   Searches and Seizures      Airports      Borders      Consent      Drug Testing      Dwellings      Exclusionary Rule      Grounds for a Search      Informants      Mail      Nuances of Detention      Personal Items      Private Action      Roads and Vehicles      Tools and Augmentation      Warrants   Sentencing and Penalties Authors Trivia

Court Opinions ›› United States v. Granderson (1994) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 92-1662 1994.SCT.2019 , 114 S. Ct. 1259, 127 L. Ed. 2d 611, 62 U.S.L.W. 4190 March 22, 1994 UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. RALPH STUART GRANDERSON, JR. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Respondent Granderson, a letter carrier, pleaded guilty to one count of destruction of mail. The potential imprisonment range for that crime was 0-6 months under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The District Court imposed no prison time, sentencing Granderson instead to 5 years' probation and a fine. After Granderson tested positive for cocaine, the court resentenced him under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a), which provides that if a person serving a sentence of probation possesses illegal drugs, "the court shall revoke the sentence of probation and sentence the defendant to not less than one-third of the original sentence." Accepting the Government's reading of the statute, the District Court concluded that the phrase "original sentence" referred to the term of probation actually imposed (60 months), rather than the 0-6 month imprisonment range authorized by the Guidelines. Accordingly, that court resentenced Granderson to 20 months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals upheld the revocation of Granderson's probation, but vacated his new sentence. Invoking the rule of lenity, the court agreed with Granderson that "original sentence" referred to the potential imprisonment range under the Guidelines, not to the actual probation sentence. Because Granderson had already served 11 months of his revocation sentence -- more than the 6-months maximum under the Guidelines -- the court ordered him released from custody. Held: The minimum revocation sentence under § 3565(a)'s drug-possession proviso is one-third the maximum of the originally applicable Guidelines range of imprisonment, and the maximum revocation sentence is the Guidelines maximum. Opinion by: GINSBURG Congress could not be taken to have selected drug possessors, from the universe of all probation violators, for more favorable treatment, the Government reasons, particularly not under a provision enacted as part of a statute called "The Anti-Drug Abuse Act." [...] The Anti-Drug Abuse Act [of 1988] [...] was a large and complex measure, described by one member of the House of Representatives as "more like a telephone book than a piece of legislation." 134 Cong. Rec. 33290 (1988) (remarks of Rep. Conte). [...]

Drug Info - list of authority sites on various drugs. StopTheDrugWar.org Media Awareness Project Drug War Facts - just what the website name says. Very informative. Funny Pics © 2007 Yakov Spektor Privacy Policy