{"id":2000,"date":"2020-01-30T13:12:47","date_gmt":"2020-01-30T19:12:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2000"},"modified":"2020-02-04T13:40:29","modified_gmt":"2020-02-04T19:40:29","slug":"united-states-v-hines-dist-r-i-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/01\/30\/united-states-v-hines-dist-r-i-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"United States v. Hines (Dist. R.I. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

United States v. Hines, No. 12-117 (Dist. R.I. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Defendant had been convicted of a sex offense and was before the District Court for revocation of his supervised release on the grounds that he had possessed unlawful images. The Defendant and the United States reached an agreement where he would serve a term of incarceration of four years, plus ten years of supervised release.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The magistrate judge, in a Report and Recommendation, analyzed the agreement in light of United States v. Haymond’s holding that mandatory minimum terms of incarceration in this context were not constitutional. The judge concluded that Haymond’s holding did not render the proposed agreement in this case unlawful.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n