United States v. A.M.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
The text of a law governs its reach. We will neither read in new limits nor read out existing limits on its application. In seeking to lower his sentence, A.M. asks us to do both.
First, he asks us to impose new limits on a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement. A.M.'s sentence for bank fraud was enhanced for using "device-making equipment." U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(i). But he was also convicted of aggravated identity theft. And that conviction precludes any enhancement for "the transfer, possession, or use of a means of identification." Id. § 2B1.6 cmt. n.2. So A.M. argues…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Melendez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- United States v. Jenkins-WattsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- United States v. Charles TorresCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Jose CruzCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
- United States v. Xavier TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nadine Pellegrino v. TSACourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019
- United States v. Evans Santos DiazCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2023