United States v. Baird

Opinions of the United
1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-7-1997
United States v. Baird
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 96-1342
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997
Recommended Citation
"United States v. Baird" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 78.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/78
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
NO. 96-1342
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
v.
JOHN BAIRD,
Appellant
__________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 95-cr-00092-1
__________________________________
Argued: November 6, 1996
Before: BECKER, McKEE, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
______________________
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
______________________
The opinion filed in the above case on March 19, 1997 is
hereby amended as follows:
A new footnote shall be placed on p. 13 of the slip opinion,
just after the sentence that reads “To be related conduct, the
conduct need not, however, fit the definition of relevant conduct
under § 1B1.3,” which will read as follows:
Our textual statement might appear inconsistent with the
statement in United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084 (3d
Cir. 1990) that “[o]ffense-related departures may consider
only conduct that is relevant to the offense of conviction,
within the limitation set forth in Guidelines § 1B1.3. See
1
id. § 5K2.0.” Id. at 1105 n.24. But that statement in
Kikumura rests on language previously but no longer
contained in § 5K2.0 stating that “[h]arms identified as a
possible basis for departure from the guidelines should be
taken into account only when they are relevant to the
offense of conviction, within the limitations set forth in §
1B1.3.” However, a 1990 amendment to the Sentencing
Guidelines struck that language from § 5K2.0. See 1991
U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 358. The basis for the statement in
Kikumura having been eliminated, the statement no longer has
any force.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward R. Becker
__________________________
Edward R. Becker
Circuit Judge
Dated: April 7, 1997
2