United States v. Anthony Moore, Jr.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6820
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Dec. 17, 2012, Moore, armed, hijacked a UPS driver (Roberts), terrorized him for ~1 hour 40 minutes, and had accomplices remove packages from the truck.
- After the robbery, Moore and accomplices sold stolen goods; Moore later threatened and then shot a 15‑year‑old witness (J.B.), causing serious injuries.
- State prosecutions: Moore convicted of attempted first‑degree murder and aggravated battery (34 years), and separately pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver (4 years), to run consecutively.
- Federal prosecution: Convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 for interference with commerce by robbery; Guidelines range 188–235 months; sentenced to 235 months.
- District court ordered the federal sentence to run consecutive to the state sentences, adding nearly 20 years; Moore appealed only the substantive reasonableness of that consecutive decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) required the federal sentence to run concurrent because the state attempted‑murder was relevant conduct and the basis for the obstruction enhancement | Moore: The attempted murder was relevant conduct that formed the basis for the two‑level obstruction enhancement, triggering § 5G1.3(b) and mandating concurrent sentences | Gov: The obstruction enhancement was based on threats and other conduct; the attempted murder was not the sole basis, so § 5G1.3(c) (which permits consecutive sentences) applies | Court found district reasonably treated the threats and shooting as a single, ongoing obstruction course but concluded the court was within its authority to reject the Commission’s concurrence advice and impose consecutive sentences (i.e., no reversible error) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence (substantive reasonableness under § 3553(a)) | Moore: A consecutive federal sentence adding ~20 years was substantively unreasonable because Guidelines and §5G1.3(b) favored concurrency | Gov: Consecutive sentence appropriate to reflect seriousness, separate harms, witness‑attempted murder, and defendant’s history; § 3553(a) factors support consecutive sentence | Court: No abuse of discretion. The district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors, articulated individualized reasons (dangerousness, victim impact, attempt to kill witness, criminal history) and justified a within‑Guidelines consecutive sentence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of sentences; district court must consider § 3553(a) and explain deviations)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (within‑Guidelines sentences entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may disagree with Guidelines policy judgments)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009) (district courts entitled to categorically reject certain Guidelines based on policy disagreement)
- United States v. Tockes, 530 F.3d 628 (7th Cir. 2008) (appellate deference to district court’s placement inside/outside Guidelines and explanation requirements)
- United States v. Mirando?, 505 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2007) (district court must make individualized § 3553(a) assessment)
- United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2011) (procedural‑reasonableness standards for sentencing)
- United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Fletcher, 763 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (reaffirming presumption and review scope for sentencing)