[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

A Conversation With God

Alabama Senate runoff poll: Steve Bannon 54, Donald Trump 46

John McCain comes out against GOP's last-ditch Obamacare repeal bill

President Trump Bets On Big Loser, Cannot Fill Seats In Alabama For Luther Strange Rally

Satanic Fashion Show Inside a Church at London Fashion Week

JUDICIAL WATCH: Trump admin fighting FOR Hillary secrecy

Feral Urban Woman Goes Berserk Because a Vet Brings a Service Animal Into a Restaurant

The current Grift has STILL not ended!

Business Owner Gets Death Threats for Criticizing Police After Cops Encouraged People to Harass Him

Deep State Admits They’ve Finally “Gotten a Grip on Trump” Liken Him to George W. Bush

Cop Who Caused Handcuffed Man to be Thrown Into Lake and Watched Him Drown, Gets Only 10 Days in Jail

Cops are Breaking Into Cars & Trashing Them—To Stop People from Breaking into Cars

Insanity: Mainstream Media Triggered Over Trump Sovereignty Talk, Claims America First Idea Is Russian Propaganda

Roy Moore Races Toward U.S. Senate Victory in Alabama!

The man whose biblical doomsday claim has some nervously eyeing Sept. 23

Report: Trump Reluctant to Campaign in Alabama — But Swamp Fears Domino Effect if Luther Strange Defeated

CanÂ’t Believe IÂ’m Saying This, But ItÂ’s Time for Big Government to Rein In Big Data

IS SPAIN ON THE BRINK? Tensions Mount As Catalan Independence Referendum Draws Near

Trump’s Horrible, Arrogant, Dumb, Neocon UN Speech

49ers-Rams tickets reselling for the price of two stadium pretzels

The NFL is praying for a ratings turnaround

Hillary Clinton: I Might Challenge Legitimacy of 2016 Election

Moscow Unveils A Monument To Mikhail Kalashnikov, The AK-47’s Designer

Prominent Washington D.C. Monument to Masonic Confederate General Albert Pike is untouched

Republicans Make Common Cause with a Billionaire Homosexual Rights Activist to Defeat Roy Moore

Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change

Canadian School Bans Cartwheeling, Because We Can't Be Too Careful

We’re Living in the Bizzaro World (This is the way things look to me)

9 Cops Reveal How To Actually Get Out Of A Ticket

14 Monopoly Rules That Aren't Actually Rules

If we’re not getting the wall, we may as well have an attractive dignified president

France may make wolf-whistling and asking women for their phone number a CRIMINAL offence

Freedom Is a Myth: We Are All Prisoners of the Police State’s Panopticon Village

Suspect in Starbucks Armed Robbery Plans to Sue Good Samaritan

Hero Cops a Feel

Cop Mistakes Autism for Drug Use, Assault, Hurt Innocent Boy

Happy Birthday CIA: 7 Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years

Native American Man Misses Mother’s Last Moments Because Cops Beat Him at Hospital

In Florida it’s Illegal to Power Your Home with Solar Panels

Unlicensed Tour Guides Not Allowed in Savannah

Hours After Hurricane Irma, Miami-Dade County Tickets Residents For Code Violations (Thanks, government!)

Officer in nurse arrest was reprimanded for sex harassment

Is anybody wathching Trump on TV?

Hillary Clinton: Women Only Voted For Trump Because Their Husbands Told Them To

Entire Volume of CIA Files On Lee Harvey Oswald, Set to Be Released in October, Has ‘Gone Missing’

Cops Execute Student for Holding a “Tiny” Multi-tool

7 Best Video Sites, YouTube Alternatives

Hobby Lobby’s ‘offensive’ decoration

America's Broken System: Left & Right Authoritarianism

Workmen Allegedly Find Bone Fragments of Saint Peter Inside Medieval Altar in Rome


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Anthony Weiner Walks on Child Pornography Charges; Strikes Deal to Reduced ‘Sexting’ & Likely Little or No Jail Time
Source: TruePundit
URL Source: http://truepundit.com/anthony-weine ... likely-little-or-no-jail-time/
Published: May 19, 2017
Author: Admin
Post Date: 2017-05-19 14:42:32 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 292
Comments: 1

Only True Pundit reported weeks ago, Anthony Weiner would walk away from federal child pornography charges that the FBI and Justice Department were once pursuing against the disgraced Congressman.

Those charges would have landed Weiner behind bars for a long stretch but today he is expected to plead guilty to a much lesser charge that likely carries little to no jail time and be released before 4 p.m. Our sources said Weiner is being processed this morning by US Marshals and will spend the morning in federal custody before his court appearance.

Weiner is expected to enter a guilty plea Friday afternoon to a reduced federal sexting of a minor charge. Sentencing in the case will likely be scheduled in August or September. According to our sources it is unlikely Weiner will see significant prison time, compared to what he was facing for federal child pornography charges. He may see no prison at all and only house arrest, depending on the decision of the federal judge he is arraigned in front of today. That same judge will render his sentence, again, approximately three months from today barring other arrangements.

The reduced sexting charge is a felony that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and a minimum of no prison time, though based on Weiner’s cooperation with the case and his plea it is unlikely he will serve much if any time behind bars.

(2 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Anthony Weiner Walks on Child Pornography Charges; Strikes Deal to Reduced ‘Sexting’ & Likely Little or No Jail Time

It is a bit premature to announce that Weiner Walks. Defendants out on bail are not usually incarcerated before they are sentenced.

[True Pundit Article] The reduced sexting charge is a felony that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and a minimum of no prison time, though based on Weiner’s cooperation with the case and his plea it is unlikely he will serve much if any time behind bars.

It actually a maximum of not more than 10 years in prison.

Federally, all crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 1 years or less are misdemeanors. Federal felonies carry a maximum sentence of more than one year, making the True Pundit claim false on its face.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1470

18 U.S.C. § 1470 (2015)

§1470. Transfer of obscene material to minors

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 105–314, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2979.)

From Anthony Weiner Plea Agreement

At page 2:

In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines "U.S.S.G." or "Guidelines") Section 6B1.4, the parties hereby stipulate to the following:

A. Offense Level

1. The November 1, 2016 Guidelines apply to this offense.

2. The offense level for Count One is calculated as follows:

a. The Guideline applicable to the offense charged in Count One of the Information is U.S.S.G. § 2G3.1.

b. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G3.1 (a), the base offense level is 10.

c. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G3.1(b)(1)(E), because the offense involved distribution to a minor that was intended to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, a 7-level increase is warranted.

d. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G3.1 (b)(3), because the offense involved the use of a computer or an interactive computer service, a 2-levcl increase is warranted.

e. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G3.1(c) ("Cross-Reference-1"). because the offense involved receiving and possessing material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 applies.

f. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c) ("Cross-Reference-2"), because the offense involved causing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct and for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, and because the offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 is greater than the offense level under U.S.S.G. §2G2.2, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 applies.

g. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(a), the base offense level is 32.

At page 3:

h. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B), because the offense involved a minor who had attained the age of twelve years but not attained the age of sixteen years, a 2-level increase is warranted.

i. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.l(b)(6)(B)(i), because the offense involved the use of a computer or an interactive computer service to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, or to otherwise solicit participation by a minor in such conduct, a 2-level increase is warranted.

3. Assuming the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, to the satisfaction of the Government, through his allocution and subsequent conduct prior to the imposition of sentence, a 2-level reduction will be warranted, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §3E1.1(a). furthermore, assuming the defendant has accepted responsibility as described in the previous sentence, the Government will move at sentencing for an additional 1-level reduction, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). because the defendant gave timely notice of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the Government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently.

In accordance with the above, the applicable Guidelines offense level is 33.

B. Criminal History Category

Based upon the information now available to this Office (including representations by the defense), the defendant has zero criminal history points.

In accordance with the above, the defendant's Criminal History Category is I.

C. Sentencing Range

Based upon the calculations set forth above, the defendant's stipulated Guidelines range is 135 to 168 months' imprisonment; however, because the statutory maximum is 120 months' imprisonment the stipulated Guidelines range is 120 months' imprisonment (the "Stipulated Guidelines Range''). In addition, after determining the defendant's ability to pay, the Court may impose a fine pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2. At Guidelines level 33. the applicable fine range is $35.000 to $350,000.

The parties agree that neither a downward nor an upward departure from the Stipulated Guidelines Range set forth above is warranted. Accordingly, neither party will seek any departure or adjustment pursuant to the Guidelines that is not set forth herein. Nor will either party in any way suggest that the Probation Office or the Court consider such a departure or adjustment under the Guidelines.

At page 4

The parties agree that either party may seek a sentence outside of the Stipulated Guidelines Range based upon the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a). In light of the specific circumstances of the offense conduct in this case and because the substantially increased Guidelines range results from the cross reference to different sections of the Guidelines, the Government submits that a sentence within the range of 21 to 27 months' imprisonment (which would be the applicable Guidelines range without application of Cross-Reference-1 and Cross-Referencc-2) would be fair and appropriate. The parties understand that this Agreement reflects the distinct facts of this case and is not intended as precedent for other cases.

Except as provided in any written Proffer Agreement(s) that may have been entered into between this Office and the defendant, nothing in this Agreement limits the right of the parties (i) to present to the Probation Office or the Court any facts relevant to sentencing; (ii) to make any arguments regarding where within the Stipulated Guidelines Range (or such other range as the Court may determine) the defendant should be sentenced and regarding the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a); (iii) to seek an appropriately adjusted Guidelines range if it is determined based upon new information that the defendant's criminal history category is different from that set forth above; and (iv) to seek an appropriately adjusted Guidelines range or mandatory' minimum term of imprisonment if it is subsequently determined that the defendant qualifies as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Nothing in this Agreement limits the right of the Government to seek denial of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, regardless of any stipulation set forth above, if the defendant fails clearly to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility, to the satisfaction of the Government, through his allocution and subsequent conduct prior to the imposition of sentence. Similarly, nothing in this Agreement limits the right of the Government to seek an enhancement for obstruction of justice, see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, regardless of any stipulation set forth above, should it be determined that the defendant has either (i) engaged in conduct, unknown to the Government at the time of the signing of this Agreement, that constitutes obstruction of justice or (ii) committed another crime after signing this Agreement.

It is understood that pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 6B1.4(d), neither the Probation Office nor the Court is bound by the above Guidelines stipulation, either as to questions of fact or as to the determination of the proper Guidelines to apply to the facts. In the event that the Probation Office or the Court contemplates any Guidelines adjustments, departures, or calculations different from those stipulated to above, or contemplates any sentence outside of the stipulated Guidelines range, the parties reserve the right to answer any inquiries and to make all appropriate arguments concerning the same.

It is understood that the sentence to be imposed upon the defendant is determined solely by the Court. It is further understood that the Guidelines are not binding on the Court. The defendant acknowledges that his entry of a guilty plea to the charged offenses authorizes the sentencing court to impose any sentence, up to and including the statutory maximum sentence. This Office cannot, and does not, make any promise or representation as to what sentence the defendant will receive. Moreover, it is understood that the defendant will have no right to withdraw his plea of guilty should the sentence imposed by the Court he outside the Guidelines range set forth above.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2017-05-19   18:07:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com