Defendant’s sentence for possessing unauthorized access devices is affirmed where: 1) nothing in either the plain language of 18 U.S.C. section 1029 or the case law required that an “access device” contain information identifying a particular person as its owner; and 2) the district court sufficiently explained that the Guidelines did not account for defendant’s particular type of recidivism.
Read US v. Truong, No. 08-10446
Appellate Information
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2009
Filed December 1, 2009
Judges
Per Curiam
Counsel
For Appellant:
Joseph J. Wiseman, Law Offices of Joseph J. Wiseman, Davis, CA
For Appellee:
Lawrence G. Brown and Matthew D. Segal, Office of the United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
