The Investment Capital Growth Blog

Welcome To The ICG Blog

Strategic Insights For Business Leaders & Their Teams

Investment Capital Growth is dedicated to the personal and professional development of C-Level Executives and the management teams that run modern business. Our blog shares insights and strategies culled from years of entrepreneural and executive experience. Our thought leaders regularly publish business articles to inspire and empower.

Get Inspired, Stay Connected:

  • Subscribe To Our Blog For Updates
  • Follow ICG on Social Media
  • Engage Our Consultants

Recent Post

Posts by Topic

  • No categories

ICG Newsletter Signup

ICG's Monthly Newsletter delivers insightful and actionable information for business owners and their teams. Get the latest updates from the ICG team each month including exclusive case studies, expert commentary, special offers and real life examples of business success. Join the thousands of subscribers that enjoy our informative publication by entering your contact information below.

Contact us.

Backer in Legal Terms

Posted by sabbir On October 3, 2022 at 4:44 am

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.

Turn simple legal documents into prestigious legal documents. The importance of papers given to a customer is increased by their presentation with supports/jackets/blankets. These help your client keep documents in order and mark your business. Learn more about FindLaw`s newsletters, including our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Mark Backer is appealing a district court decision in which he is sentenced to 60 to 87 months in prison.   We consider whether an obvious error has occurred and decide that we will be remanded in custody for sentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

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.

  Finally, the confirmation of Backer`s 87-month prison sentence under the current protocol would seriously compromise the fairness, integrity or public quality of judicial proceedings.   We find that Backer meets Olano`s requirements and turned out to be an obvious mistake.   For the above reasons, we refer you to the District Court for recapture in accordance with the sentence described in Booker.  We review the District Court`s decision for an obvious error because Backer did not raise a Booker-like objection when pronouncing the verdict, but rather raised it for the first time on appeal.  United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.2005) (on bench) (a Booker error “is retained if the defendant below alleges an error by Apprendi or Blakely or that the guidelines were unconstitutional”). This website is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google`s privacy policy and terms of use apply. The District Court sentenced Backer to 60 months in prison, two years of probation and a $15,000 fine.   The supporters and the government appealed.

  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.