United States v. Grant, No. 07–3831, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12330 (6th Cir. June 9, 2009) (panel of Judges Gibbons, Keith, and Merritt):
* "What factors a district court may consider when ruling on a Rule 35(b) motion is an issue of first impression in this circuit, though we have stated in an unpublished opinion that ‘[i]n evaluating a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction, a district court can consider a broad array of factors.’"
* "It stands to reason that a defendant’s substantial assistance will be the predominant factor in a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b). But that does not mean that a district court is precluded from considering other factors at the same time, whether those factors ultimately militate in favor of a larger, smaller, or identical sentence to the one it would have imposed on the basis of substantial assistance alone."
* So, the door is open for broader consideration of the issues.
United States v. LaCasse, No. 06–2212 (6th Cir. June 4, 2009) (panel of Judges Gibbons, Norris, and Rogers):
* Begay analysis does not change earlier holding that Michigan Fleeing and Eluding is a crime of violence. (Note—check your subsection. Fourth-Degree F and E not categorically a crime of violence.)
* Holding seems to be in tension with other recent conclusions.
United States v. Grams, No. 08–1697 (6th Cir. May 29, 2009) (panel of Judges Clay, McKeague, and Holschuh [S.D. Ohio]):
* Sentencing courts must clearly identify any deviations from the guideline range. Was this deviation a departure or a variance?
* District courts must provide specific reasons for departures and variances.
* Good discussion of the need to explain sentences.