Should Michael Vick’s federal sentencing be concerned with gang tackling?

As this CNN piece details, “Michael Vick has agreed to pay nearly $1 million for the care of about 54 pit bulls found on his property during a dogfighting raid.”  In addition, earlier this week Vick learned that a trial on state dogfighting charges has been set for April.  And, according to the CNN piece, there is lots of evidence that Vick’s financial condition is deteriorating even faster that his personal reputation.

An interesting legal question raised by all of these developments concerns whether they should lead to a reduced federal sentence because of all the collateral consequences Vick has suffered.  There are lots precedents for cutting Vick a federal sentencing break because of all the other forms of punishment he is enduring (ranging from the Supreme Court’s decision in Koon to the President’s commutation in Libby).

Some related Vick posts:

• Should Michael Vick get sentencing credit for PETA passage?
• An amici sentencing brief going to the dogs
• Does Vick’s (sincere?) apology change anything?
• Vick being sacked by the collateral consequences of an indictment
• Friday forum: what sentence should Vick get if he pleads guilty?
• Michael Vick takes a plea deal
• Mid-week forum: is it fair for Vick also to face state criminal charges?
• Vick surrenders early; is it a good move?