Hi Ya'll

Judges Pryor, Carnes and our very own Patricia Seitz, have once again affirmed that if the sentencing judge says he/she would give a defendant the same thing, even if the appellate court says they were wrong on a guideline issue, it does not matter how screwed up the guideline calculations were in the first place.  United States v. Pantle

There has been much ado about the recent Acosta v. Black allegations being publically exchanged between those two lawyers in relation to the Epstein case.  Seems to me that people considering the public pronouncements should probably consider that only one of the two has been: (1) publically reprimanded by a federal judge (Order at p.4 ("Nonetheless, I enter a public reprimand against: (1) the United States Attorney and his senior staff members, for failure to exercise proper supervision...")) and (2) discussed at length in an Inspector General's report relating to the infamous DOJ hiring practice that went on during a portion of the Bush administration:

"Acosta acknowledged that Schlozman had significant responsibility for hiring during Acosta’s tenure as AAG. Acosta said he was not aware that Schlozman acted inappropriately in the hiring process. Acosta said
he believed that all attorneys hired in the Division were recommended by the section chief and the DAAG overseeing that section. Acosta said no one complained to him that inappropriate hiring practices were taking place.

However, Special Litigation Section Chief Shanetta Cutlar told us she complained directly to Acosta about Schlozman’s intent to hire as her deputy an applicant whom she considered unqualified even for a line attorney position..."

Black seems to me to be on pretty firm ground.