United States v. Abebe
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13243
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Abebe pled guilty to armed bank robbery, discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.
- He robbed a Chase Bank armed with a .38 handgun and a rifle pellet gun, terrorizing employees and customers and firing twice.
- He stole over $9,000 and fled; a bystander was shot but survived.
- He had four prior felony convictions at the time of the robbery.
- At sentencing, the court calculated a guideline range of 84–105 months, imposed a 300-month term (180 months on Count One, 120 months on Count Three concurrent, 120 months on Count Two consecutive), and imposed restitution and supervised release.
- Abebe appealed, challenging procedural handling at sentencing and the substantive reasonableness of the above-guideline sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error in sentencing | Abebe argues the court focused on reasonableness rather than §3553(a) sufficiency | Court followed proper procedure, considering §3553(a) factors | No procedural error; court satisfied required steps and considerations. |
| Substantive reasonableness of above-guideline sentence | Abebe contends 300-month sentence is not necessary for protection | Court adequately explained reasons and weighed 3553(a) factors | Above-guideline sentence affirmed; within discretion given district court’s findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of sentencing procedures; proper consideration of 3553(a))
- United States v. Coopman, 602 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2010) (procedural-sentencing considerations and 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Tyra, 454 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2006) (no magic words required to show proper 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Campos, 541 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2008) (need not recite every factor; must show consideration)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement of a reasoned basis for sentencing decision)
- United States v. Curb, 626 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2010) (three-step framework for evaluating procedural sufficiency)
- United States v. Carter, 538 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court’s familiarity and discretion in weighing facts)
- United States v. Ellis, 622 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding above-guidelines sentence with adequate reasoning)
- United States v. McKinney, 543 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming above-guidelines sentence when warranted)
- United States v. Aldridge, 642 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2011) (above-guidelines sentences permissible with justification)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (requires reasoned, individualized sentencing)