Sentencing Sample Clauses

Sentencing. The court must give the de- fendant an opportunity to be heard in mitiga- tion and then proceed immediately to sentenc- ing. The court may, however, postpone sen- tencing to allow the probation service to in- vestigate or to permit either party to submit additional information.

Sentencing. A defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel before being sentenced to incarceration or probation for the collection of a fine, fee, court cost, state assessment, or restitution, unless there is a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel.5 If the Court contemplates imposing incarceration or probation on an unrepresented defendant, or wishes to preserve its right to impose a jail sentence or probation in the future, the Court must conduct an indigence determination by using the Affidavit of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and considering any other relevant factors, to evaluate whether the defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel at no cost.

Sentencing. The defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed by the Court after considering the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (hereinafter "Sentencing Guidelines"). The defendant acknowledges and understands that the Court will compute an Case 1:09-mj-00015-JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 3 of 13 advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the applicable guidelines will be determined by the Court relying in part on the results of a Pre-Sentence Investigation by the U.S. Probation Office, which investigation will commence after the guilty plea has been entered. The defendant is also aware that, under certain circumstances, the Court may depart from the advisory sentencing guideline range that it has computed, and may raise that advisory sentence up to and including the statutory maximum sentence or lower that advisory sentence. The defendant is further aware and understands that the Court is required to consider the advisory guideline range determined under the Sentencing Guidelines, but is not bound to impose that sentence; the Court is permitted to tailor the ultimate sentence in light of other statutory concerns, and such sentence may be either more severe or less severe than the Sentencing Guidelines' advisory sentence. Knowing these facts, the defendant understands and acknowledges that the Court has the authority to impose any sentence within and up to the statutory maximum authorized by law for the offense identified in paragraph one and that the defendant may not withdraw the plea solely as a result of the sentence imposed.

Sentencing. Section 143(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides: „In considering the seriousness of any offence, the court must consider the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm which the offence caused, was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused’. Sentencing guidelines for a particular offence will normally include a list of aggravating features, which, if present in an individual instance of the offence and relevant, should be taken into account.

Sentencing. Having now dealt with the substantive and the personal jurisdiction, we come to another crucial feature, namely sentencing. The whole purpose of the Juba exercise was to “lure” ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Kony and his rebels out of the ▇▇▇▇, and the negotiators therefore agreed that the available sentences should not be too harsh. Sentences for the acts concerned here are quite severe in existing Ugandan penal law, and include the death penalty. Clauses 6.3-4 of the Agreement, however, privilege the LRA by prescribing “a regime of alternative penalties and sanctions” for the non-state actors. These penalties and sanctions shall reflect various factors. One of them is “the gravity of the crime”, but that is to be weighed against the other considerations, namely to “promote reconciliation between individuals and within communities; promote the rehabilitation of offenders; take into account an individual’s admissions or other cooperation with proceedings; and, require perpetrators to make reparations to victims.”87 Unfortunately, this difficult issue of sentencing is not regulated further in the annexure, but is left to the legislators. They have a balancing act to look forward to, because it is not likely that the ICC will accept a proceeding that ends up in a symbolic penalty, since that would be thought of as a measure to “shield” the perpetrators or as being “inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice”.88 On the same note, and with the same purpose to allow milder sentences for the LRA indictees, the accords contain provisions regarding the cooperation of individuals with the formal criminal and civil proceedings. Clause 3.6 indicates that cooperation could be rewarded with a mitigated sentence, while the preceding Clause

Sentencing. 34. Court may accept or reject recommendation on sentence. 35. Power to reduce penalties for assistance provided to Crown.

Sentencing. The CDO will recommend the proposal to the sentencing court, including the fact that the individual has consented to the requirements and that the provider and/or mental health providers have agreed to offer interventions for a DRR/ATR/MHTR or combined order. A combined CSTR may only be recommended if the offence is serious enough and matches the level of the order i.e. a court order that includes two treatments will only be available to individuals whose offence reaches the medium level community order range or higher. The length of any CSTR should reflect the treatment need and be agreed with the treatment provider. Whilst the individual is being sentenced, CDO and court must ensure that the person understands the sentence and is provided with a CSTR leaflet (language appropriate/easy read if necessary) along with the date/time of the next appointment. If sentenced to a proposed CSTR(s) the judiciary will be asked to complete a short form which indicates the sentence which might have been imposed had the CSTR not been available. Probation will ensure a process to arrange appointment(s) with the relevant provider(s). Post sentence the Offender Manager (OM) will co-ordinate a three/four-way meeting with the provider and/or MHTR provider and the individual to discuss sequencing of the order, expectations and goals. The treatment elements of a DRR or ATR will be provided by locally commissioned substance misuse services. If an individual is sentenced to a combined CSTR, all providers will work in partnership to appropriately deliver the requirements, ideally by joint case reviews. The MHTR interventions will be provided by the MHTR Mental Health practitioners and clinically supervised by the Clinical Lead. Probation is responsible for informing the Substance Misuse/MHTR provider of any relevant requirement. • Making initial contact, co-ordinating 3-way reviews and initiating contact to gain information for court reviews and preparing reports; • Informing the provider of any relevant risk issues, breach or remand status; • Informing the provider of any protected characterises, social/ access issues; • Supporting the provider if engagement is proving difficult or if the requirement is not meeting the individual’s needs and requires adjustment, or if an individual has responded well and does not require the full duration of the intervention or treatment. • Non-attendance/non-compliance within 48 hours of the set appointment; • Drug test results; • Engagement wi...

Sentencing. ▇▇▇▇▇ understands and agrees that: 1. The maximum punishment on each count of the Bill of Information is the greatest of either a fine of up to $50,000 per day of violation, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2), or a fine of not more than twice the pecuniary gain or loss from the offense may be imposed if such a fine would not unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing process, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). 2. OMEGA shall be required to pay a mandatory special assessment of $400 per count at the time of the guilty plea by means of a cashier’s check, bank official check, or money order payable to “Clerk, U.S. District Court”; 3. The agreed-upon fine will be made due and payable five (5) business days after sentencing; 4. The parties have agreed to waive the presentence investigation and to request that sentence be imposed immediately following the Rule 11 hearing; and, 5. The parties agree that the agreed upon fine amount set forth above is appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). 6. This case is Governed by the Sentencing Reform Act, as modified by United States ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, except that the fine calculations for environmental offenses are not governed by USSG § 8C2.1.

Sentencing. The NMT judgments also played a role in Erdemović concerning the relative gravity of war crimes and crimes against humanity. McDonald and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ took the position for the majority that crimes against humanity were more serious than war crimes, citing ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ explanation in Einsatzgruppen that the difference between the 166 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Appeals Judgment, McDonald and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Separate Opinion, paras. 43-45. 167 Id., Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇. 27-28. 168 Prosecutor ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, IT-98-29-T Judgment, para. 44 (5 Dec. 2003). 169 Prosecutor ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, IT-98-33-T, Judgment, para. 526 (2 Aug. 2001). 170 See ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, The First Ecocentric Environmental War Crime: The Limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute, 20 GEO. INT’L ENV. L. REV. 61, 78 (2007). 171 Rome Statute, Element of Crimes, art. 8(2)(b)(iv), 132 n. 37. Some delegations insisted at PrepCom that whether an attack was “clearly excessive” should be determined from the