21 U.S.C. § 850
Information for sentencing
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter or section 242a(a) 1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1977–2008 · leading case: Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980).
Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980). “See also 21 U. S. C. § 850 . This Court has reviewed in detail the history and philosophy of the modern conception that "the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.”
United States v. Randy Lamont Patterson AKA Randy Brown, Marcus Wayne Edmundson, Tony Burton, Don Grogans, & Billy Ray Brown, 819 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir. 1987). “21 U.S.C. § 850 , however, provides that “no limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct” which a court may receive and consider for purposes of imposing an appropriate sentence pursuant to DSDO sentencing.”
United States v. Nicholas Anthony Moccia, 681 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1982). “The short and conclusive answer to these objections is that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (of which § 849 is a part) specifically states that, no limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person…”
United States v. George Tom Darby, Constantine Yamanis, Vincent Calise, & Michael Yamanis, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984). “With reference to the purported hearsay testimony, we note that under section 850, “no limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of the person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and…”
United States v. Lawrence E. Simmons, Jr., 218 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2000). “Since the government filed an information charging a prior offense against Simmons, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 850 and 851, once a finding of 50 grams is made, Simmons automatically receives the statutory sentence of 20 years, minimum.”
Rosati v. Haran, 459 F. Supp. 1148 (E.D.N.Y 1977). “§ 3577 , which provides that “[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”
United States v. Ochs, 490 F. Supp. 1206 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “See also 21 U.S.C. § 850 . The indictment The jury found this defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, the essential wording of which follows: COUNT ONE The Grand Jury charges: 1.”
United States v. Ochs, 548 F. Supp. 502 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). “We do not say that his industry and pleasantness while in present confinement have been solely to earn ‘credits’ which will support his application for parole and entitle him to other benefits; such conduct may be coupled with a strong desire to ‘go straight.”
McClain v. United States, 527 F. Supp. 209 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “Indispensable also is a thorough search for solid evidence pointing to the innate potential of offenders for moral rehabilitation and to determine just what it will require for them to establish and maintain themselves along lines heretofore foreign to them and inimical to their…”
United States v. Warner, 301 F. App'x 137 (3rd Cir. 2008). “”); 21 U.S.C. § 850 (same); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) (“In resolving any dispute concerning a factor important to the sentencing determination, the court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided…”
United States v. Crespo-Hernandez, 186 F. App'x 419 (5th Cir. 2006). “(3) Mendez Mendez objects to the procedure set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 850 for enhancement of sentences based on prior convictions, but he concedes that his objection is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.”
United States v. Sanchez-Dominguez, 17 F. App'x 895 (10th Cir. 2001). “2d 435 (2000); and (3) his conviction and sentence did not comply with the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 850 for charging prior convictions for defendants charged with having prior drug convictions.”
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.