Plunkett

United States v. Plunkett

Good Law
74 F.3d 938·96 Daily Journal DAR 802·1996 WL 29256·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4229·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 24, 1996No. 95-30053California870 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wallace, J.

Opinion by Chief Judge WALLACE.

Plunkett challenges his 46-month sentence of imprisonment, which was imposed after he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal of the sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . We affirm.

I

While serving an unrelated state sentence, Plunkett contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Bureau) and confessed to robbing a bank several years earlier. Bureau officials admitted that without Plunkett’s confession the crime would have remained unsolved. On September 7, 1993, a hearing was held to sentence Plunkett for the crime to which he confessed. In recognition of his voluntary disclosure, the district court departed downward to a base offense level of three and a guideline range of zero to six months. The district court placed Plunkett on probation for five years subject to numerous conditions, including that Plunkett not “purchase, possess, use, distribute or administer any narcotic or other controlled substance. ...”

Nonetheless, on December 15, 1994, the court issued a Warrant and Order to Show Cause as to why Plunkett’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.