Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Defense Newsletter Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Defense Newsletter BlogGuzman: ok to require address in Mexico on supervised release
By Tim Cone
ADVERTISEMENTS
In U.S. v. Guzman, No. 08-14077 (Feb. 18, 2009), the Court held that the district court did not exceed its authority when it imposed a special condition of supervised release, requiring Guzman to inform the probation officer in writing of his address in Mexico within 72 hours of his deportation from the United States. The Court found that the purpose of such a condition fell within the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). "Ensuring that Guzman remained in Mexico was strongly related to his unlawful re-entry offense, was specifically designed to deter him from unlawfully re-entering again, and, in this respect, would help protect the public from any future attempt by Guzman to unlawfully re-enter the country."Full post as published by Defense Newsletter Blog on February 20, 2009 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Darvon
Other Propoxyphene-Containing Meds to Require Stronger Warnings
Hayes Bicycle Group
Recalls Quick-Release Devices
Salmonella Found in Tomotoes
57 Reported Cases in New Mexico and Texas
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

CA1: home confinement as a condition of supervised release
Guilty verdict in Yelena Guzman homicide
CA1: Anders on supervised release
CA1: supervised release revocation doesnt get Booker or Blakely protection
Second Circuit Indicates How It Views Gall: Deep Deference








