UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MAHMOUD ELDICK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 2004-12-20
No. 03-16158
Before BIRCH, KRAVITCH and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.
393 F.3d 1354 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 7 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: Based upon the concessions and agreement of counsel at oral argument and in their briefs, we VACATE Eldick’s sentence and REMAND for re-sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D); United States v. Yost, 185 F. 3d 1178, 1181 (11th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1108, 120 S.Ct. 1960, 146 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000) (“... we have held that when we vacate a sentence and remand for re-sentencing, the sentence becomes void in its entirety and the district court is free to revisit any rulings it made at the initial sentencing.”); United States v. Stinson, 97 F. 3d 466, 469 (11th Cir.1996) (“A criminal sentence is a package of sanctions that the district court utilizes to effectuate its sentencing intent consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines.”). . In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the drug involved in Count Two was a Schedule 3 opiate, which carried a five-year statutory maximum. The defendant was sentenced on the basis of the presenlence report which erroneously calculated the sentence on Count Two as if the drug was a Schedule 2 opiate, which carries a 20-year statutory maximum. The sentence rendered was plain error because it exceeded the statutory maximum.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008)
    …e Georgia had a compelling interest in deterring fraudulent and illegal gambling schemes to protect financially vulnerable individuals and a single-digit multiplier of punitive damages would not have effectively deterred AT&T from future misconduct. 393 F. 3d 1354, 1363-65 (11th Cir.2004). In W&O, we upheld a 26 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages as to one plaintiff and a ratio of 16 to 1 as to another plaintiff in a pregnancy discrimination case because the awards “[were] reasonable in…
  • United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011)
    …ts purpose, the goal of causing Medicaid programs, by way of misinformation, to reimburse for medications for which they believed the programs did not intend to reimburse. For our purposes, that is enough. See, e.g., Kemp v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 393 F. 3d 1354, 1359-60 (11th Cir. 2004) (recognizing a duty to inform customers of certain information where failure to do so would cause the customer to be misled) (citing, inter alia, United States v. Townley, 665 F. 2d 579, 585 (5th Cir.1982) (noting that “und…
  • Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009)
    …t the jury’s punitive damages award of $145 million was unconstitutionally excessive); Action Marine, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Inc., 481 F. 3d 1302 (11th Cir.2007) (upholding a jury’s punitive damages award of $17,500,000); Kemp v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 393 F. 3d 1354 (11th Cir.2004) (reducing a jury’s punitive damages award of $1,000,000 to $250,000). In its pre-trial order, however, the district court employed a series of assumptions and found that, based on these assumptions, any verdict awarded by the jury…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw