T1B

Appeals court vacates sentence of 'millennium bomber' Ressam


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated the sentence of "millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border and convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.
Ressam was arrested in December 1999 In Port Angeles, Wash., when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with a trunk full of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of all nine charges. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court judge to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

Explain the rationale behind the 22 year sentence?

Gee... maybe it was because he was PLANNING TO FUCKING BLOW UP LAX.

Proves the old adage: "What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Your Honor"

Cuda wrote:

Appeals court vacates sentence of 'millennium bomber' Ressam


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated the sentence of "millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border and convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.
Ressam was arrested in December 1999 In Port Angeles, Wash., when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with a trunk full of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of all nine charges. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court judge to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

Explain the rationale behind the 22 year sentence?

did you even read your own linked article, you dumbfuck?

What part of "reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back " gives the remotest fucking indication that ANY appeals court- let alone the 9th- is thinking the sentence wasn't severe enough?

I'll try to put it in terms I hope are simple enough for you to grasp: If the 9th Circuit thought the sentence was too light, they'd have fucking said so and let all of the convictions stand instead of tossing any of them.

mvscal wrote:Relax, Cudes. They just want them to explain the rationale for giving him such a light sentence.

He prolly stopped reading after "9th Circuit" and assumed the worst.

psssst... Smackie... mvscal was just making a funny. They don't toss convictions if the sentence is too lenient

Cuda wrote:What part of "reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back " gives the remotest fucking indication that ANY appeals court- let alone the 9th- is thinking the sentence wasn't severe enough?

I'll try to put it in terms I hope are simple enough for you to grasp: If the 9th Circuit thought the sentence was too light, they'd have fucking said so and let all of the convictions stand instead of tossing any of them.

Without knowing all the details, the conviction that was reversed could've been the least severe of the charges. On the eight remaining charges for which the convictions stand, the Appeals Court wants justification for the sentence. It's possible the sentence will remain unchanged or even increased. I believe the only thing the Appeals Court can then rule on is the justification provided; I doubt that even the 9th Circuit will order a lower court to reduce the sentence based on the severity of the eight convictions.

Cuda wrote:psssst... Smackie... mvscal was just making a funny.

psssst ... I don't think so.

They don't toss convictions if the sentence is too lenient

They don't toss convictions based on the sentence at all. They uphold or reverse them based on the proceedings that led to the conviction. The sentence has nothing to do with that determination.

Jsc810 wrote:Smackie Chan, Esq.

And you thought I wasn't listening when you showed me around your work area.

Cuda wrote:psssst... Smackie... mvscal was just making a funny. They don't toss convictions if the sentence is too lenient

pssssssttt....Dumbass....they didn't toss the conviction on eight of the nine charges.

Read the fucking article, mvscal

The 9th Circuit vacated the sentence AND threw out one of the muzzie's convictions.


Smackie, the plain fact is that the appeals court ordered the lower court to justify the 22 year sentence ad it wasn't because they thought it was too lenient. No way you can get around that.

Mikey, what you're clearly asserting is that they DO toss out convictions if the sentence is too light. Keep in mind, you're not talking to other lawyers here and not many of us are going to swallow that kind of patently ridiculous horseshit like your fellow ambulance chasers will

Cuda wrote:Smackie, the plain fact is that the appeals court ordered the lower court to justify the 22 year sentence ad it wasn't because they thought it was too lenient. No way you can get around that.

I don't have to get around it. Your c&p does that for me:

federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light

Ever consider that the prosecution appealed to the higher court asking for justification for the light sentence? The defense may have appealed the conviction(s), while the prosecution appealed the sentence. Your article provides very little detail. You can read into it whatever you want, but until you give us the facts, it don't mean shit.

What do you want us to do, shoot him?

Sin,
911 Operator

I wrote:Ever consider that the prosecution appealed to the higher court asking for justification for the light sentence? The defense may have appealed the conviction(s), while the prosecution appealed the sentence.

This is, in fact, what happened.

The L.A. Times wrote:Ressam initially was exposed to a 65-year sentence, but after the trial he agreed to cooperate with the government. Although he provided testimony and participated in numerous debriefings, the appeals court noted, Ressam stopped cooperating in 2003. As a result, the government asked for a 35-year sentence; Ressam's lawyers asked for 10 years. The judge decided on 22 years.

Hillier, who represented Ressam, said he was pleased with the decision, though he acknowledged that his client could wind up with the same sentence.

Emily Langley, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney in Seattle, which had appealed in hopes of getting a longer sentence for Ressam, said lawyers were studying the ruling.

Judge Marsha S. Berzon joined in the majority opinion. Judge Arthur L. Alarcon dissented from the decision to vacate one of Ressam's convictions but concurred in the majority's decision to vacate the sentence.

"I agree with the government that the sentence imposed" by the trial judge "was unreasonable and an extreme departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines," Alarcon wrote.

So try to quit being a dumbfuck, Coods. By all means, continue with your c&p jobs - it's the one thing at which you excel. But leave the analysis of what you paste to those who know wtf they're talkin' about, mmkay?

It isn't often that I have to resort to quoting one idiot in order to give another idiot a kick ithe nuts.


No, wait... I do that fairly often.

Anyway...

mvscal wrote: They did not throw out one of the convictions. Had they done so, a new trial would be in order not a new sentence.

Smackie Chan wrote:

The L.A. Times wrote:Judge Marsha S. Berzon joined in the majority opinion. Judge Arthur L. Alarcon dissented from the decision to vacate one of Ressam's convictions but concurred in the majority's decision to vacate the sentence.

Next time you dissent from me, mvscal, you'd better be wearing a cup

dirty, dope addled old hippie wrote:

LA Times wrote:"I agree with the government that the sentence imposed" by the trial judge "was unreasonable and an extreme departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines," Alarcon wrote.[/url]

The prosecutor thought he was going to get a longer sentence out of that?

I guess if a lawyer with an IQ of 50 is called "Your Honor", a lawyer with an IQ of 49 must be called "Mr. Prosecutor"

mvscal wrote:They did not throw out one of the convictions. Had they done so, a new trial would be in order not a new sentence.

Really?

So, when there's an appeal, and they "throw out" a conviction, they can immediately turn around and retry you for the same thing?

Really?


A new sentencing hearing after the convicted doesn't honor an agreement that netted them a lighter sentence, and a new trial after a conviction has been "thrown out" are two different things.


Sin,
Marcus "Thomas Jefferson" Allen

mvscal wrote:Articles such as this are the inevitable result of the idiotic attempting to inform the ignorant.

Sigworthy.

I'll take a wild guess that the story posted is a shortened version intended for broadcast.

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:They did not throw out one of the convictions. Had they done so, a new trial would be in order not a new sentence.

Really?

So, when there's an appeal, and they "throw out" a conviction, they can immediately turn around and retry you for the same thing?

I believe that is true. The reversal of a conviction by an appellate court is not the same as an acquittal, so double jeopardy does not attach. The conviction is overturned because of improper procedure, not because of evidence. The prosecution then has the option of retrying, and trying to do it right next time. Although in this case, with eight of the nine convictions upheld, I doubt they'll retry on the sole reversal.

Cuda wrote:

LA Times wrote:"I agree with the government that the sentence imposed" by the trial judge "was unreasonable and an extreme departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines," Alarcon wrote.

The prosecutor thought he was going to get a longer sentence out of that?

Try to follow along, slappy.

Dude gets tried.
Dude gets convicted on nine counts.
Dude gets sentenced.
Defense isn't happy with the fact that client got convicted, so they appeal.
Prosecution isn't happy that convictions led to light sentence, so they appeal.
No one's happy, both sides appeal, but for different reasons.
Case goes to Appeals Court.
Defense gets one of nine convictions reversed.
Prosecution gets sentence vacated (which is what they were hoping for when they appealed).

So, yes, the prosecution not only thought they would get a longer sentence out of that, but the appeals panel agreed that the sentence should at least be revisited and justified. And there is a chance that, despite there being fewer convictions on which to base the sentence, the length of the sentence will be increased.

What part of this are you failing to comprehend? Or are you just so wrapped around the axle about it being the 9th Circuit that you're convinced justice won't be served?

I think he's just a ctrl-dumbass. No need for a review on that.

Cuda wrote:I guess if a lawyer with an IQ of 50 is called "Your Honor", a lawyer with an IQ of 49 must be called "Mr. Prosecutor"

And a poster on this board with an IQ of 40 would be called "Cuda".

Cuddles....ya hit China with that shovel yet?

Okay, so he had a trunk full of "explosives." And in our racial-profiling hysteria, we're supposed to discount the possibility of a freelance gopher exterminator on a late-night emergancy call...WHY?

See, this is what happens when you give Pentacostal lunatics like John Ashcroft too many "tools."

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, so he had a trunk full of "explosives." And in our racial-profiling hysteria, we're supposed to discount the possibility of a freelance gopher exterminator on a late-night emergancy call...WHY?

See, this is what happens when you give Pentacostal lunatics like John Ashcroft too many "tools."

If you knew what the hell you were talking about, hippie, you would know that you sound like a fucknut.

The reasons that his car was searched were numerous. He told US Immigration officials that he was coming in from Canada to Seattle on business, yet was taking an asinine three ferry & out of the way trip to get to Seattle. Business travelers tend to take the most direct route. They did a half-assed search of the car and waved him through. He was very nervous and odd.

Upon reaching US soil, he was met by Customs inspectors who asked to see some ID. He gave them a Costco card as opposed to an official ID and once again acted very nervous. They actually thought he was smuggling drugs, searched his car and found the bomb making materials but didn't really know what they found (they still thought it was some kind of drug since it was white powder and brown liquid). Ressam then fled on foot. They caught him and turned him over to the FBI. The rest is history.

Would a "gopher exterminator" act like that? Putz.

Rack Fu wrote:I don't get it.

No shit? :?

Mister Bushice wrote:I think he's just a ctrl-dumbass. No need for a review on that.

Oh, the irony.

ElvisMonster wrote:

Rack Fu wrote:I don't get it.

No shit? :?

Huh? Do you share a brain with someone else?

LTS TRN 2 was playing the "poor Muslim looking guy getting jerked around by Big Brother" card. His car would have been searched if he was white, black, asian, hispanic, purple, blue, male or female. He was acting like somebody trying to hide something. Once again, they thought he was a drug runner not a terrorist as this was pre-9/11. John Ashcroft was not the AG at the time either.

Carry on with whatever "I don't get."

Rack Fu wrote:Carry on with whatever "I don't get."

Coarse blades of grass in tread of the $54,000 SUV.

Rack Fu wrote:Huh? Do you share a brain with someone else?

LTS TRN 2 was playing the "poor Muslim looking guy getting jerked around by Big Brother" card. His car would have been searched if he was white, black, asian, hispanic, purple, blue, male or female. He was acting like somebody trying to hide something. Once again, they thought he was a drug runner not a terrorist as this was pre-9/11. John Ashcroft was not the AG at the time either.

Carry on with whatever "I don't get."

My bad. In retrospect it couldn't have been a "Caddy Shack" reset. Rack you for getting over.

LTS TRN 2 making a funnay?

I find that hard to beleev.

Of course I picked up on the Caddyshack gopher reference. I have seen the movie a hundred times.

Putting in a funny line in an already pointed liberal blast does not change what was being said.

If the whole intent of that post was to just throw in that zinger - I apologize for the rant. Given LTS TRN 2's posting history as it relates to this kind of stuff, I doubt it.

BSmack wrote:

Cuda wrote:I guess if a lawyer with an IQ of 50 is called "Your Honor", a lawyer with an IQ of 49 must be called "Mr. Prosecutor"

And a poster on this board with an IQ of 40 would be called "Cuda".

Fuck off, you ankle biting vag-lip.

Weren't you one of the "Gasoline prices will rocket back up over $3 a gallon right after election day" crowd?

The day you're even close to knowing what the fuck you're talking about is the day the sun will rise in the west

Rack Fu wrote: If you knew what the hell .... act like that? Putz.

We know what he did ya fucking dolt.

Now tell us how the 'bomb' in the trunk facilitated his forgery of a passport.

TVO must be trying to prove he's dense enough to be appointed to the Cali Supreme Court.

He'll still need to schlurp Ahnold's schwannstücker, though

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: Now tell us how the 'bomb' in the trunk facilitated his forgery of a passport.

He wouldn't need a forged passport if he wasn't try to smuggle explosives.

Get back to me when you learn the meaning of big words like "facilitate."

Moving Sale wrote:

Rack Fu wrote: If you knew what the hell .... act like that? Putz.

We know what he did ya fucking dolt.

Now tell us how the 'bomb' in the trunk facilitated his forgery of a passport.

What the fuck does that have to do with what LTS TRN 2 posted or what I posted? I wasn't debating that, Atticus Shrimp. It was the racial profiling blast.

My bad. Good to see you see eye to eye with the 9th.

How do your Fibber buddies feel about that?

Smackie Chan wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Smackie Chan, Esq.

And you thought I wasn't listening when you showed me around your work area.

And the "reach around" theory of TSB can't be explained any better in an open forum.

Oot

mvscal wrote:

Rack Fu wrote: It was the racial profiling blast.

I thought it was a Caddyshack reset?

It was. Say mvscal, did you hear the one about the Jew, the Catholic, and the Colored Boy who went to heaven?

It's heartening to see that Cuda came in here and owned up to the fact he was completely wrong from word one of this thread. It is also refreshing that he didn't try to deflect the "debate" away from his original idiocy to something about gas prices.

Kudos Cuda.

Your idiocy is well noted around here.

Feel free to go fuck yourself