Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

993 F.2d 368

Docket No. 91-5316.

United States v. Torcasio

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 6, 1991.

Decided March 11, 1992.

Amended Opinion Decided May 12, 1993.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-03-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1992

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act)

Relies on United States v. Dunnigan · United States v. Dunnigan · United States v. Torcasio

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1992-03-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Martha Purcell Rogers, Cadwalader, Wick-ersham & Taft, Washington, DC, argued (Ronald G, White, on brief), for defendant-appellant.

¶2*369John Patrick Rowley, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charleston, WV, argued (Michael W. Carey, U.S. Atty., Michael L. Keller, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Before LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5In the previous opinion in this ease, United States v. Torcasio, 959 F.2d 503 (4th Cir.1992), we affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Torcasio of aiding and abetting a state official in the commission of extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and for one count of perjury for lying to a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. We remanded, however, for resentencing in view of our decision in United States v. Dunnigan, 944 F.2d 178 (4th Cir.1991). The district court had adjusted Torcasio’s sentence upward for the testimonial denial of guilt under Guideline § 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guideline, and following Dunnigan we held this unconstitutional.

¶6The United States Supreme Court has now reversed our Dunnigan decision, United States v. Dunnigan, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993). In view of this, we amend our first opinion in Torcasio, 959 F.2d 503 (4th Cir.1992), by affirming the district court’s judgment in its entirety, including the district court’s sentencing actions.

¶7The previously issued mandate shall be recalled and the mandate reissued immediately effecting the holding of the within opinion.

¶8AFFIRMED.

/993/f2d/368 · .json · Public domain