Latest Case: United States v. Pena (Constitutional Law)

Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

In this second of a two-part series of columns considering the likelihood that President Trump will refuse to leave the White House even if he loses the election, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes the bad news that Trump and his supporters seem likely to use violence to keep him in office.

Read More

Latest Twist in the Flynn Case Highlights the Danger of Judicial Deference to Trump’s Administration

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on a decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holding that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan exceeded his power by refusing to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security advisor. Sarat explains the relationship between the judiciary and prosecutors and points out that that judicial deference toward prosecutorial decisions can only be reconciled with constitutional governance if prosecutors respect, and are guided by, canons of integrity and professionalism. Sarat argues that the current leadership of the Justice Department shows utter disdain for such canons.

Read More

United States v. Pena

Docket: 19-2050

Opinion Date: June 24, 2020

Judge: Stephanie Kulp Seymour

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Tommy Peña was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico of conspiracy to commit a carjacking, carjacking and aiding and abetting, using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and four counts of felon in possession of a firearm and/or ammunition. For these convictions, defendant was initially sentenced to 480 months. However, after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), defendant no longer qualified for a sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. 924(e). At resentencing, the district court imposed a 360-month sentence, varying upward from the guidelines. Defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Although the Tenth Circuit found the variance from the guidelines here was indeed large, the district provided compelling reasons for the upward variance, and thereby maintained the connection between defendant's conduct and the sentence imposed. Given that detailed explanation, the Court determined defendant could not meet his burden of showing the sentence was arbitrary, whimsical or substantively unreasonable.