United States v. Curb
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23612
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Curb pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and crack cocaine.
- District court found Curb as a supervisor in the conspiracy and that he willfully obstructed justice.
- Curb was sentenced to 270 months after considering managerial and obstruction enhancements with a minor acceptance-of-responsibility deduction.
- The Square operation in Chicago involved dozens of participants; Harris testified at a post-plea evidentiary hearing.
- Curb fled sentencing for ~2.5 months and was arrested; the flight contributed to the obstruction finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Managerial enhancement | Harris and other evidence show Curb exercised control and recruitment. | Evidence credibility contested; not all seven factors clearly support supervisor status. | Affirmed; several factors show managerial role and control over others. |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | District court followed post-Booker procedures, considered arguments, and explained reasoning. | Court failed to articulate mitigation considerations adequately. | Procedurally reasonable; court considered §3553(a) factors and explained rationale. |
| Substantive reasonableness of below-Guidelines sentence | Discretion to impose below-range sentence under Kimbrough; reasons supported by record. | Disparities with co-defendants and crack/powder disparities undermine sentence. | Not an abuse of discretion; district court properly weighed factors and applied discretion. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement | Curb willfully failed to appear, delaying the sentencing; flight was calculated evasion. | Mental state and panic negate willfulness or show panicked flight rather than evasion. | Affirmed; failure to appear constitutes willful obstruction and delayed administration of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hankton, 432 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2005) (factors for manager/supervisor role in conspiracy consideration)
- United States v. Brown, 900 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1990) (instructions on applying § 3B1.1 factors)
- United States v. Mancillas, 183 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 1999) (credibility allowances in evaluating managerial role)
- United States v. Garcia, 66 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 1995) (courts' deference to judge's credibility determinations)
- United States v. Draves, 103 F.3d 1328 (7th Cir. 1997) (panicked flight vs calculated evasion nondispositive for obstruction)
- United States v. Bolden, 279 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2002) (willfulness of failing to appear can be proved without flight or deception)
- United States v. Hanhardt, 361 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2004) (limits of considering disturbed mental state in obstruction context)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may deviate from crack guidelines but are not required to)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (explanation requirements for post-Booker sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Campos, 541 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2008) (procedural steps after calculating Guidelines range and considering §3553(a))
- United States v. Millet, 510 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2007) (necessity of addressing §3553(a) factors in sentencing)