You can try to spin it as a “good thing” that the Trump appointed judge failed to deliver a sentence in accordance with the guidelines all you want. The fact of the matter remains Tarrio got off far too easy and by at least five years.
You should read the article because it clearly explains that he’s planning to appeal. But they’ve sneakily hidden that information all the way down in the third sentence.
If the reduced sentence allowed a swifter sentence, it may be a good thing overall, as this can now be used as precedent.
You can try to spin it as a “good thing” that the Trump appointed judge failed to deliver a sentence in accordance with the guidelines all you want. The fact of the matter remains Tarrio got off far too easy and by at least five years.
It was probably part of a plea deal. Defense agreed to lighter sentence in exchange for not appealing.
As pointed out, he is appealing. Also, it states that the prosecution requested the maximum sentence.
Article says Tarrio plans to appeal.
You should read the article because it clearly explains that he’s planning to appeal. But they’ve sneakily hidden that information all the way down in the third sentence.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Can you suggest another realistic possibility, or are you just being contrarian?
deleted by creator