U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2

Remedial Orders – Organizations

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§8B1.2. Remedial Orders – Organizations (Policy Statement)

(a) To the extent not addressed under §8B1.1 (Restitution – Organizations), a remedial order imposed as a condition of probation may require the organization to remedy the harm caused by the offense and to eliminate or reduce the risk that the instant offense will cause future harm.

(b) If the magnitude of expected future harm can be reasonably estimated, the court may require the organization to create a trust fund sufficient to address that expected harm.

Commentary

Background: The purposes of a remedial order are to remedy harm that has already occurred and to prevent future harm. A remedial order requiring corrective action by the organization may be necessary to prevent future injury from the instant offense, e.g., a product recall for a food and drug violation or a clean-up order for an environmental violation. In some cases in which a remedial order potentially may be appropriate, a governmental regulatory agency, e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food and Drug Administration, may have authority to order remedial measures. In such cases, a remedial order by the court may not be necessary. If a remedial order is entered, it should be coordinated with any administrative or civil actions taken by the appropriate governmental regulatory agency.

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1991 (amendment 422).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1994–2014 · leading case: United States v. Amos Searan & Jeanettia Searan, 259 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Amos Searan & Jeanettia Searan, 259 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2001). “The culpability determination is “heavily dependent upon the facts,” USSG § 8B1.2, comment, (backg’d) (1992), and this court reviews for clear error the district court’s findings of fact regarding whether a defendant is entitled to such reduction.”

United States v. Reinaldo A. Arocho, Marc Flores & Jesse Colon, 305 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2002). “U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2 comment. (n.l). Application Note 3 further explains that Subsection (b) applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.”

United States v. Raohl Hursh, 217 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2000). “In addition, Hursh moved for a downward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(a) because, he contended, he was a minimal participant in the crime for which he was convicted.”

United States v. Joseph Spriggs, III, 102 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “Spriggs Finally, appellant Spriggs contends the district court erred in sentencing *1264 him as a minor rather than as a minimal participant under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2. Once again we defer to the district court’s decision.”

United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez, 319 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2003). “Minor Participant Adjustment (Bo-net) Bonet argues that the court erred in not granting him a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(b) for being a minor participant in the conspiracy.”

United States v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 287 (D. Mass. 1994). “See U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2 (“Remedial Orders”). Indeed, while I condemn Bard for its criminal conduct, I do credit it with having accepted responsibility for its past behavior, while not attempting to diminish, excuse or justify it, and with taking steps designed to prevent it from…”

United States v. James Barker, 188 F. App'x 906 (11th Cir. 2006). “Under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(b), “[a] defendant warrants a two-level reduction for playing a minor role in an offense if he is less culpable than most other participants, although his role could not be described as minimal.”

United States v. Silcock, 61 F. App'x 528 (10th Cir. 2003). “At the sentencing hearing, Silcock requested a two-level reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 8B1.2 based on the minor role he played in the conspiracy.”

United States v. Joe Louis Lopez, 393 F. App'x 604 (11th Cir. 2010). “9 He seeks a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that the district court, in determining the adjusted offense level for the § 841(a) offense under the Sentencing Guidelines, erred in denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(b), and that his…”

United States v. Bloomfield, 394 F. App'x 760 (2d Cir. 2010). “See U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2. Generally speaking, we review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard.”

United States v. Jose Orozco, 471 F. App'x 422 (5th Cir. 2012). “Orozco’s primary argument is that the district court failed to assess correctly his role in the offense and to grant him a minor or minimal participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2. The defendant has the burden of showing that he is entitled to the adjustment.”

United States v. Martin Verdugo, 551 F. App'x 313 (9th Cir. 2013). “Yanez Verdugo contends that the district court erred by denying his request *314 for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(b), because it presumed drug couriers are ineligible for a minor role adjustment, improperly considered government evidence in other cases, and…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— U.S.S.G. §8B1.2(a) — 1 case

— U.S.S.G. §8B1.2(b) — 4 cases

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.