United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Gary Bowdach, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• interpreting procedural requirements of sentencing hearings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3575 (1970), the federal “Special Dangerous Offender Act”
• enhancement of sentence based upon facts underlying previous conviction, subsequently overturned on appeal, not violative of double jeopardy prohibition nor due process
• “Due process is satisfied by the granting of a hearing immediately after the person is brought into custody in order to determine whether the bond should be permanently revoked.”
• “At a sentenc- ing, a Court can consider many matters that might not be admissible at a trial including evidence of crimes for which the defendant has been indicted but not convicted . . . .”
• considering constitutionality of § 3575(e)(1) and (f) only
• rejecting virtually identical double jeopardy argument

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).