“As a threshold matter, the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting its sentencing scope and refusing to reconsider Maldonado-Passage’s previously denied motion to dismiss for multiplicity,” stated Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy in his written opinion for the court. “Therefore, no vehicle to challenge the § 1958(a) components of his sentence as multiplicitous remains. Nonetheless, this court also confirms § 1958(a)’s ‘plot centric’ unit of prosecution permits separate offenses and consecutive sentences when, as here, two unrelated hitmen are hired to kill the same person.”
Third Time’s a Charm? $43M Verdict Overturned Again for Law Firm’s Posts, State Appellate Court Says
“It should go without saying that an integral aspect of
