Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. King, 03-4715 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 03-4715 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-15-2005 USA v. King Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-4715 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "USA v. King" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1355. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1355 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States C
More
Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-15-2005 USA v. King Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-4715 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "USA v. King" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1355. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1355 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 03-4715 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LORENZO M. KING, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Crim. No. 03-cr-00122) District Court: Hon. Gustave Diamond, Chief Judge Argued: September 21, 2004 Before: McKEE, Circuit Judge, and ROSENN and WEIS, Senior Circuit Judges ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Not-Precedential Opinion filed in this case on April 14, 2005, be amended as follows: In Footnote 2, in the next to the last line, the sentence should read: “Moreover, to the extent the sentencing court may decide to enhance a sentence based upon factors such as those incorporated into the sophisticated means enhancement, it must rely only upon conduct admitted by the defendant or found by the fact finder based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” IT IS SO ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judge DATED: April 15, 2005 CMH/cc: KSG, KRL
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer