United States v. Cureton, 882 F.3d 714

Defendant Demetrius Cureton was convicted of attempted extortion, interstate ransom demand, two § 924(c) counts (possession of a firearm during a crime of violence), and three counts of distributing crack near a school.
After initial sentencing totaling 744 months, this court reduced Cureton’s sentence by 300 months on appeal because only one § 924(c) conviction should have been counted, yielding a 444‑month sentence on remand.
The case reached the Seventh Circuit again after subsequent proceedings concerning supervised release conditions; the district court reimposed the 444‑month sentence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dean v. United States rejected the Seventh Circuit’s prior rule (e.g., Roberson) that barred district judges from considering mandatory § 924(c) minimums when sentencing on predicate counts.
Cureton invoked plain‑error relief seeking full resentencing; the government sought either affirmance or a limited remand under Paladino to let the district court state whether it would have imposed the same sentence knowing Dean.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dean requires resentencing or plain‑error relief here	United States: affirm or limited Paladino remand to let judge say if sentence would change	Cureton: full resentencing for plain error because prior Roberson rule may have constrained sentencing	Court ordered a limited Paladino remand so the district court can say whether it would impose the same sentence knowing Dean, retaining jurisdiction
Whether the record shows the sentence was influenced by the Roberson rule	United States: record suggests judges were not constrained (e.g., repeated max for ransom count, serious predicate sentences)	Cureton: absence of explicit analysis means Roberson may have constrained outcome	Court found the record “cloudy” (not clearly constrained or unconstrained) — supporting a limited remand rather than immediate affirmance or full resentencing
Appropriate remedy framework post‑Dean	United States: limited remand (Paladino) is suitable where uncertainty exists	Cureton: plain‑error/full resentencing appropriate given change in law	Court applied its established approach: if record clearly unaffected, affirm; if clearly affected, full resentencing; if ambiguous, limited Paladino remand — here limited remand ordered

Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (Supreme Court disapproved rule barring consideration of § 924(c) mandatory minimums when sentencing on predicate counts)
United States v. Cureton, 845 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 2017) (prior appellate ruling in Cureton’s case)
United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007) (prior Seventh Circuit rule limiting consideration of § 924(c) mandatory minima)
United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (authorizing limited remand to allow district court to state whether it would exercise discretion differently)
United States v. Wheeler, 857 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2017) (example of affirmance where record showed sentence was not constrained by Roberson)
United States v. Fox, 878 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2017) (example of remand/analysis in light of Dean)