Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 07-25-2021

Case Style:

United States of America versus Tommy Delando Burns

Case Number: 20-10949

Judge: Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:


New Orleans, LA Criminal defense Lawyer Directory


Description:

New Orleans, LA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine charges.



Tommy Delando Burns, federal prisoner # 35499-177, was convicted
of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine
and two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine.
Following a remand, he was resentenced to concurrent terms of 324 months
* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 23, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-50681 Document: 00515950851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2021
No. 20-50681
2
in prison and five years of supervised release, but his sentences were
subsequently reduced, and he is now serving concurrent terms of 262 months
in prison. He moved in the district court for resentencing under the First
Step Act of 2018, § 404, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018), and
he asked for a reduction of both his sentences and his terms of supervised
release. Without a hearing, the district court denied the motion in an order
without giving any reasons.
Though district courts need not always explain why they have denied
a motion, meaningful review is possible here only with a statement of reasons
for the denial. See Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.
1989). Absent such a statement, we can only guess why the motion was
denied

Outcome: We thus REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the district
court to explain why it denied the motion, and we retain jurisdiction, as is
customary for limited remands.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: