The 2021 Case
AMC3 is a program TISL created to fill a gap between the moot court in law school and successful mock trial programs for high school and college students. Participation is limited to college students who are not in law school.
Legal teams of two to five members argue each side of a hypothetical case before the Tennessee Intercollegiate Supreme Court.
Briefs returned to the AMC3 Teams
Attorney General applications are due to the Supreme Court at 9:00 am CST on Friday, November 19 th , 2021.
The Supreme Court has significantly revised the ballot for this year’s competition and encourages delegates to familiarize themselves with the changes. The ballot can be found as part of the AMC3 Handbook under the General Assembly tab.
Each team submits a brief two weeks before the competition. Download MS Word template for brief. We strongly recommend preparing your brief in Microsoft Word. Alternate applications such as Google Docs frequently break the formatting.
Please submit your brief in a PDF format.
On February 2, 2020, the Defendant, Maximum Derek, committed an armed robbery of Michael’s Neighborhood Grocery in the State of West Dakota in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
Derek held two workers in the grocery store at gunpoint while forcing them to walk across the store, from the produce section to the cash registers which were located at the front of the store. Derek forced the workers to open the four cash registers and empty the cash in them into bags. Derek then exited the store with the money.
Derek plead guilty to the robbery offense and then sentencing was set for September 17th, 2020.
In furtherance of his robbery, Derek brandished and threatened victims Chidi Anagonye and Jason Mendoza with a firearm. Therefore, pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, five levels are added to the base offense level. In addition, using the threat of his firearm, Derek forced victims to accompany him to a different location. Therefore, pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), a further four levels are added to the base offense level.
This case arises from Derek’s suit claiming that the abduction sentencing enhancement does not apply to the facts of this case. Derek argues that his conduct would at most, warrant the two-level physical restraint enhancement on the grounds that he did not move the victims to another location.
Whether movement within the same building constitutes movement to a “different location” for the purposes of the four-level abduction sentencing enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
There are two downloads. The first download contains the full technical record from depositions to Certiorari plus the List of Authorities. The second is a closed List of Authorities. Lawyers may reference cases outside the List of Authorities insofar as they are quoted by a case in the List of Authorities.