4 ms·
> The issue is that judges used a value provided by Microsoft for the discs that is counter to fact (license =/= recovery disc, counterfeit or not) and massivel
by zeusk 9y ago
> The issue is that judges used a value provided by Microsoft for the discs that is counter to fact (license =/= recovery disc, counterfeit or not) and massively inflated his sentence as a result.
You don't understand Criminal Law if you believe that statement is true. Above a certain threshold, the sentence is more of a precedent and deterrence.
- devindotcom 9y agoYou can see how the sentence increases with the value in the chart at 2b1.1 (b)(1) here: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/2015-chapter-2-c#NaN https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/2015-... The value of the goods matters a great deal. The sentencing documents go into detail on it. The 11th court judge writes that the previous sentencing range, which he affirmed, was "largely based on a calculation that valued the infringed goods at $700,000." That put it in the range of 37-46 months, and prosecutors had threatened more early on when valuing the discs at $299 each. The plea deal took it down to 15.
- zeusk 9y agoGuidelines and base severity levels only specify a maximum sentence, with counterfeit goods crossing state and national boundaries 15 months is completely appropriate.
- nebulous1 9y agoWait, now your're saying that the value of the goods changes the sentencing guidelines but that doesn't matter? That seems weak.