United States v. Barnes
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21500
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Barnes and Taylor conspired to steal drugs from a stash house in Fort Wayne, Indiana, using a fictitious shipment devised by government agents and an informant; they were arrested May 5, 2006, with weapons and ammunition recovered from vehicles; the government indicted six participants for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and Barnes/Taylor separately for firearm offenses; trials resulted in convictions and the court found the conspiracy involved more than five kilograms of cocaine; on initial sentencing, Barnes and Taylor were based on a 40 kg attribution for the conspiracy, creating disparity with co-conspirators sentenced on five-to-fifteen kilograms; on appeal this Court vacated and remanded, directing re-sentencing; on remand, the district court used the five-to-fifteen kilogram stipulation to compute guidelines for Barnes and Taylor; Barnes and Taylor raised new arguments at re-sentencing which the district court deemed waived or beyond remand; the Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court's re-sentences within the applicable Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand after Pepper v. United States | Barnes/Taylor say Pepper requires de novo review and waiver is eliminated | Barnes/Taylor say remand wipes slate clean for new arguments | Pepper allows new arguments within remand scope but preserves waiver rules |
| Whether Pepper eliminates waiver on remand | General remand grants free rein to present all new issues | Remand is general but not carte blanche for all new issues | Waiver persists; new arguments must relate to issues raised on appeal |
| Procedural error in applying 3553(a) factors at re-sentencing | District court failed to consider mitigating evidence | Court properly weighed §3553(a) factors | No reversible procedural error; court adequately considered factors |
| Reasonableness of re-sentences after remand | Re-sentencing without benefiting from Pepper’s de novo scope should be lenient | Re-sentences should reflect change in drug quantity | Sentences within Guidelines and substantively reasonable under Pepper framework |
| Harmlessness of any waived-new-argument error | Waiver error could affect outcome | Any error was harmless because the district court rejected the new arguments on their merits | Harmless error; sentences upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (general remand allows de novo resentencing but does not erase waiver rules; rehabilitation evidence allowed on remand)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (reaffirms ability to reconfigure sentencing on remand)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (harmless error standard in sentencing context)
- United States v. Scott, 555 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2009) (preserves reasonableness review and need for meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Omole, 523 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2008) (guidelines-based reasonableness framework)