That was the defendant's mom after Judge Cohn sentenced Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan to 29 months a week after sentencing her to credit time served. I've tried not to blog about the case because I was involved for a brief time early on in the litigation. Here is the intro from Vanessa Blum's article:
Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, an Iranian woman accused of trying to export night vision goggles, thought her guilty plea last month would be her ticket back to her family.The federal prosecutor had recommended a term of time served for the 30-year-old mother's role in the illegal plot to trade with Iran, a U.S.-designated terrorist nation. U.S. District Judge James Cohn imposed the sentence at an April 25 hearing in Fort Lauderdale federal court.But on Tuesday that smooth resolution unraveled. Determining the sentence had been a mistake, Cohn extended Gholikhan's prison term from time served to two years and five months.Under the law, federal judges can amend sentences within seven business days that result from "arithmetic, technical, or other clear error."
Gholikhan's lawyer Bill Barzee had this to say:
William Barzee, Gholikhan's attorney, called the resentencing unfair and un-American, saying after the hearing that his client feels like she's back in Iran."I don't think it's fair to [agree on a sentence] and have someone plead guilty and then come back and ask the court for a do-over," Barzee said in court Tuesday.
And a sentencing professor commented:
Jonathan Rosenthal, a Fort Lauderdale defense lawyer who teaches sentencing at Nova Southeastern University, said he found a description of Gholikhan's resentencing "troubling" because the guidelines are only one factor judges should consider."I don't understand how on Monday a sentence of four-and-a-half months is reasonable, but on Tuesday, all of a sudden, that sentence is no longer reasonable," Rosenthal said. "Judges are not supposed to give guidelines any undue weight."
It's a valid point. If a sentence of credit time served is reasonable, how can a sentence of 29 months be reasonable the next day -- especially when the prosecutor had agreed to credit time served. If the situation was reversed -- and the defendant didn't like her sentence -- would a judge allow her to come back to court?
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
6 comments:
The prosecutor cannot be trusted. Who is it?
Did the prosecutor request the new sentence or did the judge, sua sponte, state that "time served" was a mistake and he really meant 29 months? What does the sentencing trascript say? I'm a bit confused about the procedural history . . .
Prosecutor agreed to time served. He then turned around and asked for a reesentencing because he made a mistake about the guidelines.
Who was the prosecutor - that is NOT HOT, Bush League Crap.
mike walleisa
I hate to defend a prosecutor, but I think we may be missing some important facts. According to the prosecutor's Motion, he and the defense attorney agreed to a plea -- acceptance, minor role, low end, etc. At the change of plea hearing, the defense attorney, without prior notice to the prosecutor, asked to go directly to sentencing. The prosecutor claims that he told the judge that he was unaware that they could go straight to sentencing or that the defense attorney was going to ask for that and wasn't really prepared. The Judge went ahead anyway. The defense attorney and the probation officer said that the BOL for the charge was 14, and after reductions based on the plea agreement, the defendant was in the 0-6 range. The defendant had been in for 4 and a half months. So the Judge gave her CTS. The prosecutor went back to his office, did some research and according to him, the correct BOL was 26, not 14.
Having said that, it sucks to get CTS, then have that rug pulled out from under you. And, of course, the guidelines are only supposed to be advisory -- one of many factors to consider. In this case, it seems like there were some compelling reasons why the guidelines were too high. Why is it that 99% of the time, it turns out that the Judges think that the guidelines are right on the money. Those guys at the USSC must be geniuses to be exactly correct with such uncanny frequency.
Post a Comment