Backer in Legal Terms
Many jurisdictions have all collectively waived support sheets and instead require that the name, address, and phone number of the issuing lawyer or law firm be included in the legal document itself, usually under the attorney`s signature block. The support sheet is the back cover page of a legal document. It is designed to show in the folded state what the legal document is and who it comes from. Backup sheets are preferred by process servers and court office staff. The support sheets have the title of the document in the central part and the name and address of the law firm are indicated at the bottom of the back sheet. Group legal documents into a covered support document to create a legal document that is protected from occasional consultation. Enhance your presentation while personalizing your business. Supporters with a thumb-sized striped folding top tab are ideal for use with wills, copies of wills, estate planning documents, trusts, real estate closing forms, contracts, agreements, and all other legal documents. These supporters hold about 10 folded sheets or 25 unfolded sheets. They are medium weight for letter or legal paper and are available in white, blue, grey, white, ivory or off-white, most with a linen finish. Your supporters will be printed with your logo and fixed information or will be available in white.
The letter size of supporters with incremental scores on the foldable top tab can hold up to about 75 sheets and is ideal for use with larger documents. They are made in a medium weight or cover weight for letter size paper and are available in white, blue, white stone, ivory or off-white with a linen surface. We print your supporters with your logo and company information or we offer them empty. Noun a person or company that supports someone ExampleOne of the company`s supporters has withdrawn. Use of an invoice medium The person who supports an invoice, a person or a company that supports someone Supporter argues that the Principle of Apprendi invalidates three sentence improvements he has received: (1) six levels for possession of more than three firearms in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4); (2) two steps for possession of a destructive device in accordance with § 2K2.1(b)(3); and (3) two steps for a serial number erased in accordance with § 2K2.1(b)(4). We disagree. During Backer`s sentencing, he admitted to being in possession of the weapons in question, and our previous statement resolved the legal question of whether any of these weapons were a destructive device. In addition, the jury established beyond any doubt the facts that form the basis of these improvements. We reaffirm the hardening of the verdict by the District Court.
Olano`s first two requirements are met because the District Court erred in convicting Backer under binding guidelines and we have previously found that this error was obvious. Id. at p. 550. Our review of the minutes also shows that the court`s error affected Backer`s essential rights. In particular, Backer sought a downward movement based on the absence of a criminal past and his possession of weapons as a collector. At the hearing, Backer also expressly called for a three-step reduction in the assumption of liability. In its rejection, the District Court stated that its judgment was a consequence of the binding nature of the guidelines and the previous opinion of that court. In addition, the District Court`s previous sentence, which was 27 months shorter, shows a reasonable probability that Backer could receive a more favorable sentence if Booker were convicted again.
We upheld Backer`s conviction, but we quashed the sentence and were remanded in custody to be convicted. United States v. Backer, 362 F.3d 504, 509 (Cir. 8, 2004). We found that the District Court wrongly rejected a two-step improvement under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1-one for destructive devices and one for an erased serial number. The improvements added six additional levels, resulting in a violation of 29 and a penalty range of 87 to 108 months. At sentencing, Backer raised no objections to the pre-conviction investigation report and was again sentenced to 87 months. The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 P.Ct.
2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the same day Backer was re-sentenced. Backer is now filing an appeal, arguing that changes to federal guidelines for convictions affected by Supreme Court decisions in Blakely and Booker require a second pre-trial detention for a new trial.