Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Askia Washington

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided August 28, 2017No. 16-2795Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcKEE, Circuit Judge

I agree with the Majority’s thoughtful and persuasive discussion of the discovery and ineffective counsel issues this case presents. I therefore join Part II.A and Part II.C of the Majority Opinion. However, I disagree with my colleagues’ rejection of Washington’s sentencing manipulation claim and his assertion that the mandatory minimum sentence should not apply in these unique circumstances. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent from Part II.B.

I. Stash-House Sting Operations

Arguably, undercover sting operations, including ones involving fictitious stash houses, can be a valuable…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Kimbrough v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Tison v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. United States v. William Christopher Twigg, Iii, United States of America v. Henry Alfred NevilleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  5. United States v. Mark William Paul StauferCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API