Source: https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/united_states_v_justin_k_dorvee_-_appellant_brief/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:31:34+00:00

Document:
Occasionally we are asked by lawyers preparing briefs if we would consider posting the final product on this blog. In this instance we are posting an appellant brief for the New York Sourt of Appeals Second Circuit case United States v. Justin K. Dorvee. The brief was prepared by Paul J. Angioletti, attorney for the defendant. We are grateful to Mr. Angioletti for submitting his brief for posting on this blog.
The information immediately below is taken from the introductory sections to give you a quick overview of the issues involved. It is followed by a link to the complete text of the brief, which you can upload.
Defendant Justin K. Dorvee appeals from the final appealable Judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J.
2256(8)(A)] and sentencing him principally to 240 months, with Dorvee given credit pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 for six months and fourteen days for which he would not Numbers in parentheses preceded by “A” refer to the pages 1 of Appellant’s Appendix.
numbers in parentheses preceded by “P” refer to the pages of the plea; numbers in parentheses preceded by “S” refer to the pages of the sentencing. otherwise receive credit by the Bureau of Prisons (A 9-15).1 The sentence was to run concurrently with a New York state court sentence.
By order dated March 9, 2009, this Court appointed Paul J. Angioletti as counsel for Dorvee pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act.
Dorvee is currently incarcerated pursuant to this judgment of conviction at Otisville Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York.
The district court had jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
This Court has jurisdiction over this direct appeal from a conviction in the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
ISSUES PRESENTED 1. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT THE 240-MONTH STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE IT IMPOSED WAS A BELOW GUIDELINES SENTENCE?
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING SEVERAL § 2G2.2 ENHANCEMENTS?

References: v. 
 § 5
 § 3231
 § 3742
 § 1291
 § 2