Sex dating in thomson illinois
The court then accepted the report and adopted its factual findings. The court then told Thompson that he could seek clarification at any time if anything confused him.
The court used the report to calculate Thompson's guide-lines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Thompson was also free to confer with his counsel at any time, and the court ensured that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation.
Moreover, throughout the entire process, Thompson never once hesi-tated or sought clarification.
These facts show that he know-ingly and voluntarily pled guilty. 2007) (noting that a district court may consider “information contained in the [presentence report] to establish a factual basis before entry of judgment and imposition of sentence”).
Being the naïve and impressionable teenager that she was, she got into his truck and agreed to ride away with him.
To address this issue, we consider “(1) the complexity of the charge; (2) the defendant's level of intelligence, age, and education; (3) whether the defendant was represented by counsel; (4) the judge's inquiry during the plea hearing and the defendant's statements; and (5) the evidence proffered by the government.” United States v. We agree that Thompson was competent to plead guilty.As the court explained, it had no time to research the summary's underlying cases or even give the summary itself any sort of thoughtful review. 2017) (noting that “the Sentencing Guidelines are themselves an anti-disparity formula,” so “to base a sentence on a properly determined Guidelines range is to give adequate consideration to the relation between the defendant's sentence and those of other persons”).In any event, the court imposed a within-guidelines sentence, thereby neutralizing the risk of unwar-ranted sentencing disparities. Second, the court committed no error when it declined to credit Thompson's cognitive difficulties and childhood adversity as mitigating. Although the court could have credited Thompson's mitigating evidence, it did not have to do so.The court then analyzed the § 3553 factors, recounting the heinous na-ture of Thompson's crime; Thompson's wanton disrespect for the law and the need for deterrence; the unspeakable physical and emotional damage to the victim, including the recurrent harm of having pornographic images of her forev-er circulated on the internet; the lack of meaningful mitigating factors; and Thompson's tepid acceptance of responsibility. The law also requires a district court to ensure that the defendant understands his rights. Before the court accepted the plea, it made sure that Thompson understood his constitutional and Rule 11 rights, the charges and evidence against him, and the penalties he faced.
The court offered to expound further on the § 3553 factors, but Thompson expressly declined this offer. Thompson appealed, raising several issues—none of which have merit. Thompson said that he understood these things and agreed that the government could prove its case.He drove the girl to Farmington, Missouri to pick up his wife.