Memorandum Decision and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant Jason Buzzard’s objection to a four-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). In accordance with my ruling at the January 17, 2020 Sentencing Hearing and for the reasons stated herein, the objection is SUSTAINED.

Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum of Law Determining Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC’s Litigation Purchase Agreement is Unenforceable as a Violation of Public Policy. [ECF No. 67]. The instant lawsuit alleges negligence, strict liability and other claims against defendant Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”)1 related to the implantation of pelvic mesh, which was allegedly manufactured by BSC. In the Motion filed by plaintiff, plaintiff seeks a determination by this court that a contract entered into by plaintiff and Prospect Funding Partners, a litigation funding company and nonparty to the instant litigation, is unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied. Plaintiff’s claim related to Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC is a separate and distinct contract dispute between plaintiff and a nonparty to the instant action. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant Cooper’s objection to designating his 2015 conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree robbery in West Virginia as a “crime of violence” pursuant to § 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. For the reasons stated herein, the objection is SUSTAINED.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the proffered guilty plea to Count 1 of the Single Count Information in United States v. Yvonne Dozier. On September 9, 2019, the court conducted a plea colloquy pursuant to Rule 11, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, at which time Defendant Dozier pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), Access Device Fraud. In conducting the plea hearing, the court questioned whether a sufficient factual basis existed for the guilty plea in that Defendant Dozier did not obtain the access device, here a State Purchase Card, with the intent to defraud, thereby not satisfying all the elements of the charge. After considering the arguments on both sides, the matter is now ready for the court’s review. The question before the court is whether an unauthorized access device must be obtained with the intent to defraud at the time the access device is acquired, or whether later unauthorized use suffices. For the reasons stated herein, the proffered plea of guilty is DENIED.