For Immediate Release: October 21, 2014
Contact: Craig M. Sandberg, 312.263.7249, email@example.com
Cincinnati, Ohio – Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1) and two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced Defendant to 360 months imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence.
On October 21, 2014, a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed with the Court of Appeals alleging err in the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences without admonishing Defendant of the true nature of his maximum penalty exposure and the reviewing court's decision reflects both inter- and intra-circuit splits on the practical import of this on a defendant's ability to proceed both knowingly and voluntarily with a decision to accept a plea or to proceed to trial.
WHAT: Direct appeal in United States v. Gaskin (Docket No. 13-1824) from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (Case No. 2:11-cr-20178-1). This request for rehearing seeks review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision reported at United States v. Gaskin, 2014 FED App. 0766N (6th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014) (Not Recommended for Full-Text Publication).
WHO: Craig M. Sandberg of the law firm of Muslin & Sandberg. Mr. Sandberg represents the defendant pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), Title 18, United States Code, §3006A the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), having been appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
WHERE: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 540 Potter Stewart United States Courthouse Building, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio