Yes, stealing mail is a federal crime. Anyone accused of mail theft must understand that the United States Postal Service (USPS) takes mail theft very seriously. Those who commit this offense can face serious penalties.

What should you know about mail theft, the consequences of mail theft charges, and how to protect yourself from becoming a victim of mail theft?

What Counts as Mail Theft?

According to the USPS website, mail theft is “the unauthorized taking or use of postal items or services.”

This includes:

• Taking items out of someone else’s mailbox without permission
• Intercepting mail that was intended for someone else
• Using someone else’s postage stamps without their consent
• Opening someone else’s letter without their permission
• Forging another person’s signature on a package or letter

In all cases, it must be intentional for law enforcement to consider it a federal offense.

The United States Postal Inspection Service recommends the following to protect against mail theft:

• Promptly pick up your mail
• Contact USPS and/or the sender about overdue mail
• Never mail cash
• Use the USPS “hold for pickup” service
• Request signature confirmation
• File a change of address if you’re moving
• Submit a request for a temporary mail hold if you’re traveling or away from home

Consequences of Mail Theft Charges

The consequences of mail theft charges vary depending on the severity of the crime and whether you did it for personal gain.

If convicted of stealing just one piece of mail, you could face up to five years in prison and/or up to $250,000 in fines. If convicted on multiple counts of mail theft or if there were extenuating circumstances involved you could face even harsher penalties. These include longer prison sentences and higher fines. Extenuating circumstances include fraud or identity theft.

Have You Been Accused of Stealing Mail?

The first thing anyone accused of a crime should do is familiarize themselves with their rights under the law. This protects you and ensures law enforcement and the court system follows the appropriate procedures throughout your case.

Organize Your Evidence

It’s also wise to start gathering evidence that supports your innocence as soon as possible after you’re accused. This could include:

• Witness statements
• Photographs that prove your location when the alleged offense occurred
• Anything else that could help prove your innocence

If possible, it’s best to work with an experienced attorney who can help guide your efforts in gathering evidence in a way that complies with all applicable laws and regulations.

Accusations of mail theft are serious. If accused, don’t panic. An experienced lawyer will know all the ins and outs of criminal law and will be able to provide tailored advice based on your individual circumstances. They understand the legal system and can help you navigate your way through it.

If you’ve been accused of stealing mail or you have questions about crimes related to the USPS, contact David Lindsey for more information or to schedule a free consultation.

It’s important to understand the difference between federal and state crimes so that you can determine which court will handle your case and how much time you could face if convicted. In this blog post, we’re going to break down what makes a crime federal, so that you can understand the nuances of criminal law.

What is a Federal Crime?

A federal crime is any act that violates a United States federal law. These crimes are investigated by a federal entity, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Examples of common federal offenses include:

• Drug trafficking
• Wire fraud
• Bank fraud
• Mail fraud
• Counterfeiting
• Piracy
• Tax evasion
• Money laundering
• Possession of illegal weapons

Who Prosecutes Federal Crimes?

Federal crimes are prosecuted by attorneys from the Department of Justice (DOJ). These attorneys work with local prosecutors and law enforcement officers to investigate and prosecute cases that cross state lines or involve violations of US laws. The DOJ also has jurisdiction over certain types of civil cases such as antitrust violations or environmental protection regulations.

What Are the Penalties for Federal Crimes?

The penalties for committing a federal offense vary depending on the severity of the crime and whether it qualifies as a misdemeanor or felony offense. Federal sentences are partially determined by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines are a complicated framework for determining sentences, so it’s important to retain an attorney experienced in Federal cases. Penalties for federal crimes can range from fines up to $250K and/or imprisonment for up to five years for misdemeanors to fines up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for up to 30 or more years for felonies. In some cases, the court orders individuals to pay restitution to victims as part of their penalty.

Additionally, all offenders sentenced to prison must serve supervised release periods following their incarceration during which they must comply with certain restrictions imposed by the court.

What Should You Do If You’re Facing Criminal Charges?

If you are contacted by federal law enforcement officials do not speak to them without consulting an attorney. You have a right not to speak with these officials, and it is always better to consult an attorney before you speak with these officials because it is very rare that federal law enforcement will stop pursing a case based on something you have told them.

If you are facing accusations of a federal crime, it is important to take immediate action. It is in your best interests to speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your attorney can help you understand your legal rights and protections, the possible penalties you’ll face if convicted, and any potential defenses that may apply in your case.

Additionally, your attorney can develop an effective legal strategy for fighting the charges and protecting your rights. In some cases, your attorney may be able to negotiate with prosecutors to reach a favorable plea agreement or even have the charges dismissed altogether. It is important to remember that you are innocent until proven guilty and that you do not have to face these allegations alone. With the help of a skilled attorney, you can challenge the charges and fight for your freedom.

It is also important to be aware of the potential consequences of a federal criminal conviction. Depending on the type and severity of the offense, you could face years in prison as well as hefty fines and other financial penalties, such as restitution and court costs.

Furthermore, a conviction could also result in collateral consequences such as the loss of professional licenses and certifications, difficulty finding employment or housing, and more. With experienced legal guidance, you can work to protect your rights and minimize the potential impact of these allegations.

Speak to an Experienced Federal Crimes Lawyer

If you’re facing federal criminal charges, you must take the matter seriously and act quickly. Consulting with a qualified criminal defense attorney can be an invaluable resource in defending yourself against these charges and protecting your rights. With their help, you can fight for the best possible outcome in your case.

For more information or to schedule a consultation to discuss your situation, contact David Lindsey.

The federal sentencing guidelines mandate a longer sentence for an unlawful re-entry defendant who has previously been convicted of a violent crime, but the appeals court found that state law did not define first degree burglary clearly enough to be considered a crime of violence in the context of federal statute. The case centered on the role of these federal statutes in interpretation of the sentencing guidelines, which give judges a number of factors to consider when they impose a sentence.

Judge Brooks Jackson was chastised by the Court of Appeals for failing to follow the law when it came to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judge Jackson was previously a state court judge in Jefferson County, Colorado. He became a federal judge two years ago. In this particular case, the Guidelines mandated a sentence reduction because the defendant plead guilty and saved the government resources by not forcing them to prepare for trial. The law was and is clear. However, Judge Jackson substituted his own views and he was soundly rebuked by the appeals court.

Judge Jackson has always been somewhat of a loose cannon. My experiences with him are identical to the 10th Circuit’s take that he rules bases on his personal beliefs and not the law. This is a good example of why we need courts of appeals. More on this case can be found at http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24215917/appeals-court-blasts-federal-judge-denver-ignoring-ignore

Holder unveiled the new policy, which the Justice Department has been working on for months, asserting that “we must face the reality that, as it stands, our system is, in too many ways, broken. And with an outsized, unnecessarily large prison population, we need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate — not merely to warehouse and to forget.”

Under this new policy, the Justice Department would reserve the most severe penalties for drug crimes committed by serious, high-level or violent drug offenders. New instructions are being given to federal prosecutors in order to avoid writing criminal complaints in such a way that mandatory minimums could be triggered. “Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no truly good law enforcement reason,” Holder said. “We cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation.”

Holder says he plans to work in concert with the Department of Education and other allies “to confront the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ and those zero-tolerance school discipline policies that do not promote safety,” but instead lead students instead directly to incarceration.

Holder did not specify any changes to the Department of Justice policy on marijuana, which remains illegal under federal statute. Because the Justice Department has not yet determined how to proceed in states like Colorado, whose legalization measures run in opposition to the federal Controlled Substances Act, state and local officials remain confused about the best way to proceed. A Justice Department spokesman said the matter is still under review.

Defendant Davila, under indictment on several counts of tax fraud, complained to the court that his court-appointed lawyer had “never mentioned a defense”; the magistrate judge presiding over the case advised Mr. Davila that pleading guilty and showing acceptance of responsibility might be his best course of action. The violation of the Federal Rule 11(c)(1) is clear, and in fact the government conceded this point in its argument before the Court. What was not clear was if this interference changed the defendant’s plea decision; because Davila did not plead guilty until three months later – in front of a different judge – and because he’d had several opportunities in his intervening court appearances to mention the magistrate judge’s remarks, the Court was persuaded that his plea was not affected by that initial rule violation. Indeed, when he moved to withdraw his guilty plea, he stated to the court that his plea had been a “strategic” one in order to obtain discovery, and he did not mention the prior judicial exchange.

In Descamps v. United States, the plaintiff had been sentenced under the ACCA to 262 months in prison; the sentencing judge reviewed his previous record to determine if his prior convictions qualified as “violent felonies” and in so doing ignored the ACCA’s focus on prior convictions rather than underlying conduct. Justice Elena Kagan explained in her opinion that one of the virtues of the ACCA “categorical approach” is that it avoids the practical difficulties – and possible unfairness – of requiring a judge to make findings that more properly belong to a jury.

Only Justice Alito dissented in the 8-to-1 decision, and the Supreme Court criticized the Ninth Circuit for not only ignoring precedents but subverting them, and contended that by allowing judicial fact finding raises precisely the kind of Sixth Amendment issues that the “categorical approach had been created to avoid. Justice Kennedy wrote in his concurring opinion that Congress might want to consider making changes to the ACCA that allow sentencing judges to “pursue its policy in a proper and efficient way without mandating uniformity among the States with respect to their criminal statutes for scores of serious offenses.”

Peugh’s attorneys argued that the Ex Post Facto Clause – which prohibits among other things the passage of laws that impose a greater penalty than the punishment in effect at the time of the crime – should have shielded him from the longer sentence. The argument was rejected by lower courts, but in a majority opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that it was a violation of the Clause to sentence the defendant based on the newer Guidelines when the new iteration provides for a higher sentencing range.

The Court debated whether the Guidelines, which are no longer binding, are subject to the Ex Post Factor Clause. The dissenting opinion held generally that since the Guidelines are not mandatory, the Clause is not relevant. Justice Sotomayor – who asked some of the most pointed questions during oral arguments and seemed to be the swing vote on the case – opined that the Guidelines exert enough influence on the sentencing judge to be covered by the Ex Post Facto Clause.

A hidden result of the inmate-phone industry is widespread discrimination in federal sentencing law, because the rates effectively disallow phone calls between inmates and their families who cannot afford the exorbitant price of a phone call.

The FCC has agreed, under pressure from a collection of civil rights and religious groups as well as members of Congress, to take up the question of these exorbitant rates. Martha Wright, an elderly blind grandmother who could not afford to maintain contact with her incarcerated grandson, initially petitioned them in 2003. The question has received more attention of late with the release of “Middle of Nowhere”, an award-winning film about a woman’s struggle to maintain her relationship with her husband.

The phone calls, which can run as much as $17 for fifteen minutes, are controlled by a select group of providers who bid for exclusive contracts to a prison, in exchange for paying nearly two-thirds of the calling charges to the prison operators. Officials claim that these fees cover the cost of maintaining the higher security these calls require. The resulting discrimination in federal sentencing law punishes those without the means to pay for these calls.

The high fees make it increasingly difficult for prisoners to maintain contact with their loved ones, and many believe this increases the likelihood that the inmate will return to prison. At a 2010 Comgressional hearing, the director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute testified that contact while in prison reinforces ties between inmates and their families, giving the prisoners a greater stake in good behavior.

There is no guarantee that the hearing will lead the FCC to take action, but it is a sign of hope for people like Martha Wright, who are fighting to keep their families together.

In federal sentencing law news, the Associated Press reports that federal judges are handing out a wide range of sentences for similar crimes, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse of sentencing records; the study shows that the judge’s political party doesn’t uniformly dictate those differences.

https://www.mdavidlindsey.com/Federal-Crimes/Federal-Sentencing-Law.shtml

A study commissioned by the AP analyzed sentencing data from the last five years; sentences for the same types of crime often vary substantially between judges in the same courthouse. The study showed that the judges who hand out the harshest sentences for the three most common types of crime – drugs, weapons, and white-collar charges – are evenly split between the two parties, depending on which president appointed them.

In an effort to avoid these disparities in sentencing, Congress passed the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act; a commission was formed to establish guidelines for judges to follow as then handed out punishment, using comparable criminal history and other factors to make the sentences more uniform. In 2005, the Supreme Court struck down the law’s requirement that judges adhere to these guidelines; judges must still calculate the guidelines using numeric values for factors like the seriousness of the crime and the defendant’s record. But judges are in no way forced to hand down a sentence based on the results of this calculus. A federal judge has total discretion over the length of the sentence, or whether the defendant should be imprisoned at all.

“I think judges try to be bound by the facts, bound by the jury and bound by the law,” says federal court expert Russell Wheeler. “Sentencing is the one area where the law doesn’t constrain them very much.”

The TRAC plans to make this sentencing data available to the public, so that criminal defense attorneys will no longer have to rely on anecdotal information about a specific judge handling their case. TRAC co-director David Burnham is a former investigative reporter for the New York Times, whose articles on police corruption in the ’70’s inspired the Al Pacino film “Serpico”. Burnham feels strongly that defendants should have access to this information.