Federal Sentencing Archives - LAWSTACHE LAW FIRM

Expunged But Not Forgotten: How the Feds Use ‘Dismissed’ Charges Against You. Is PC 1203.4 worth it?

July 23, 2025 by LAWSTACHE

In this video, attorney Anton Vialtsin breaks down the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 ruling in United States v. Robert Louis Carver — a major case on how California expungements under Penal Code §1203.4 are treated in federal court. Spoiler: they still count! If you thought your old convictions were wiped clean, this case might change your mind. Learn what this means for criminal history scores, sentencing, and anyone with a “dismissed” state record.

📚 Full Opinion: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/04/02/23-4105.pdf

#FederalSentencing #Expungement #NinthCircuit #CriminalLaw #Lawstache #LegalNews #RobertCarverCase #USAvCarver #CaliforniaExpungement #SentencingGuidelines #FederalCourt #CriminalDefense #Section1203.4 #FederalAppeal #CriminalRecord #CourtRuling #LegalAnalysis #LawYouCanUse

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Is there a JURY in Federal Supervised Release Revocation Hearings? Federal Probation Violation?

June 4, 2025 by LAWSTACHE

The panel affirmed the district court’s revocation of Jackson Daniel Bowers’ supervised release in a case in which Bowers argued that Article III, section 2 of the Constitution affords supervisees the right to a jury trial in revocation proceedings held under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). In Bowers’ view, Article III and the Sixth Amendment are independent from each other and the Sixth Amendment trial-by-jury rights are more limited than those rights under Article III. Joining the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that Article III’s jury provision and the Sixth Amendment are equivalent in scope. Although there are textual differences between Article III’s “all Crimes” and the Sixth Amendment’s “all criminal prosecutions,” Bowers’ reading of this difference is not supported by the history of Article III and the Sixth Amendment. History and precedent make clear that the Sixth Amendment was meant to complement Article III, section 2, not to supersede or compete with it. It follows that a right not triggered by the Sixth Amendment cannot be independently triggered by Article III.

Read the full case here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/04/23-902.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

58% less FRAUD prosecutions. FBI’s new focus on Trump’s immigration crackdown. “Loss” in FRAUD cases

May 28, 2025 by LAWSTACHE

The latest government case-by-case records reveal that as of March 31, 2025, federal efforts to prosecute white-collar crimes have continued to decline – down more than 10 percent from FY 2024 in the last full year of the Biden administration.

The FBI is the lead investigative agency in many of these investigations. Thus, this decline is likely to grow even larger given a series of recent federal moves impacting cuts to the FBI and directing how FBI agents should spend their time. News coverage reports: “white-collar cases…will be deprioritized for at least the remaining of 2025.” Going forward, “FBI agents were told by their field offices they would need to start devoting about one-third of their time to helping the Trump administration crack down on illegal immigration.”

U.S. Attorney offices filed 4,332 prosecutions for white-collar crimes in FY 2024, less than half of the 10,269 prosecutions filed in FY 1994 three decades earlier. And FY 2025 is projected to fall even further to just 3,862. All prosecution rates except for immigration dropped substantially in the first half of FY 2025. In addition, compared with other program categories, prosecutors file prosecutions on criminal referrals at lower rates for white-collar offenses than almost all other program categories.

Most crimes the Department of Justice (DOJ) classifies as white-collar crime cover a wide range of frauds. These include corporate and consumer frauds, bankruptcy fraud, federal program fraud, financial institution fraud, health care fraud, tax fraud, identity theft, security fraud and many others. Antitrust crimes are also included in this category.

Read more here: https://tracreports.org/reports/760/

In codefendant brothers Joshua and Jamie Yafa’s appeals from their convictions and sentences for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud for their involvement in a “pump-and-dump” stock manipulation scheme, the panel affirmed the district court’s reliance on Application Note 3(B) in the commentary to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1, which, at the time the Yafas were sentenced, instructed courts to use the gain that resulted from the defendant’s offense as an alternative measure for calculating loss where loss cannot reasonably be determined.

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law

San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer | LAWSTACHE LAW FIRM

(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?

San Diego Criminal Defense | LAWSTACHE MERCH

Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?

San Diego Criminal Defense Attorneys | LAWSTACHE Real Cases

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

Federal Court Can Give LOWER Sentence to Defendant Who DIDN’T Know the Purity of the Drugs Delivered

March 12, 2025 by LAWSTACHE

Jesus Munguia Mendoza appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mendoza contends that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked legal authority under the Sentencing Guidelines to depart downward on the ground that Mendoza had no control over, or knowledge of, the purity of the methamphetamine that he delivered. We agree that, under the sentencing principles set forth in Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)—a decision of which the district court did not have the benefit at the time of sentencing—the district court erred in concluding that it lacked power to depart on the ground urged by Mendoza. We accordingly *512 vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Read the Fulle Case Here: US v. Mendoza, 121 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 1997), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mendoza-4/

Federal Sentencing Guidelines can be found here: https://www.ussc.gov

Primer on Departures and Variances can be found here: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2023_Primer_Departure_Variance.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

Acceptance of responsibility levels under § 3.E1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines.

August 18, 2023 by LAWSTACHE

Wilke contends that the district court erred by denying him the adjustment solely because of the time and money the Government spent before and at trial. According to Wilke, § 3.E1.1(a) of the Guidelines focuses only on whether, in its words, “the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense,” not on whether he saves Government resources. Saving the Government resources is, rather, the basis for a separate 1-point reduction under § 3E1.1(b).

Whether USSG § 3.E1.1(a) permits consideration of the Government’s
expenditure of resources is a legal question this Court reviews de novo. United States v. Dixon, 984 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 2020). We conclude that it does not. We are persuaded by the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in United States v. Hollis, 823 F.3d 1045 (6th Cir. 2016), where it determined that USSG § 3.E1.1(a) is “[b]y its plain terms . . . focused only on whether the defendant ‘clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility,’ while subsection (b) . . . is focused only on whether the defendant[] . . . permit[s] the government to avoid preparing for trial and permit[s] the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently.” Id. at 1048 (quotations omitted). Considering the Government’s expenditure of resources under subsection (a) risks rendering “parts of § 3E1.1(b) superfluous,” because “[i]f waste of government resources could be a basis for denying the two-level decrease under subsection (a), then there would never be a situation where a defendant would qualify for the decrease under subsection (a) but then be denied the additional decrease under subsection (b) for the reason that his or her late-in-time guilty plea caused the government to waste resources preparing for trial.” Id.

Full case here: USA V. JUSTIN WILKE, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/09/14/21-30228.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

Go to top

Our office is conveniently located in downtown San Diego at 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D.

You can reach our office by calling (619) 357-6677.

CJA Panel Attorney | ★★★★★ Reviews | Affordable Payment Plans | California State Courts | Federal Courts

San Diego Criminal Defense | Chula Vista Criminal Defense | Vista Criminal Defense | El Cajon Criminal Defense

Si usted habla espanol

We are available to take appointments on weekdays and weekends. We accept all major credit cards.