A magistrate-judge may not accept an admission to a violation of supervised release, unless the defendant consented to this during the original sentencing before the district judge.[423]

 

[423] United States v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 333 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. June 26, 2003) (magistrate does have jurisdiction to modify, revoke, or terminate supervised release whom magistrate sentenced, and may be designated by district judge to conduct modification, etc., hearing and make recommendations to district court).

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE
Freeman v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (Jun. 23, 2011)(defendants who enter into FRCP 11(c)(1)(C) agreements that specify a particular sentence as a condition of the guilty plea may be eligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), allowing review of sentence when sentencing guidelines have been amended downwards, and which applies retroactively).

First Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - SENTENCE - GROUNDS - SENTENCE BASED ON FACT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD
United States v. Gonzalez-Castillo, 562 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2009) (illegal reentry sentence reversed, where district court based the sentence on a "fact" - the assertion that this was the defendant's second illegal entry into the United States - that was not supported by the record, since that constitutes procedural error); Gall v. United States, __ U.S. __, ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (procedural errors include "selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts."); United States v. Torres, 541 F.3d 48, 51 (1st Cir.2008) (listing "selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts" as among the "procedural errors amounting to an abuse of discretion" by the sentencing court).

Ninth Circuit

POST-CON - SENTENCING - GROUNDS - JUVENILE
United States v. Juvenile Male, 470 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2006) (Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act applies to a juvenile's re-sentencing after revocation of probation, as well as the initial sentencing, so district court committed plain error by re-sentencing the juvenile under the adult sentencing scheme). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0630270p.pdf

Other

PRACTICE ADVISORY " POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " SENTENCE PROHIBITION AGAINST SENTENCE BASED ON RELEVANT CONDUCT ALREADY THE BASIS OF A SENTENCE
Counsel should negotiate sentence to take into account all of the relevant conduct so if the client is charged in another district, the sentence in the second district cannot punish that conduct a second time. U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b). Several cases prevented prosecutors from later federal prosecutions following a plea in a different district. United States v. Gebbi, 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Randolph, 230 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. Carter, 454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Von Thournout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996). The DOJ Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy (the "Petite Policy"), U.S. Attorney's Manual 9-2.031, is also helpful. See also ibid., 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests (This policy establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding. See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 27, (1977); Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960). Although there is no general statutory bar to a federal prosecution where the defendant's conduct has already formed the basis for a state prosecution, Congress has expressly provided that, as to certain offenses, a state judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts. See 18 U.S.C. 659, 660, 1992, 2101, 2117; see also 15 U.S.C. 80a-36, 1282.").