Legal Opinion

United States v. Thomas Braxton

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided May 8, 1990No. 89-5651PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge:

At sentencing Thomas Braxton was denied a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, because the sentencing judge found that the purpose of acceptance of responsibility was to lead toward rehabilitation, and that because of his mental and emotional condition Braxton could not accept responsibility to the extent necessary to entitle him to the reduction. Appellant claims error because the court found rehabilitation to be a necessary element in its consideration of the request for the reduction. We agree.

Appellant also challenges the district court’s use of a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. United States v. Kenneth Wayne Daughtrey, A/K/A Kenneth Wayne DaughtryCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
  3. United States v. Tracey Donell White, United States of America v. Clarence JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
  4. United States v. Luis Fernando Correa-VargasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
  5. United States v. James Edward HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Braxton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. United States v. David Sklar, United States of America v. David SklarCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
  3. United States v. Stanley McCallCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
  4. United States v. Theresa L. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
  5. United States v. Steven D. Loos and Lorna Jo TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998

9 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