United States v. Curtis
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14287
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Curtis was indicted May 19, 2009, for distributing crack cocaine mixtures; pleaded guilty February 22, 2010 to distributing 56.3 grams of crack; admitted also giving 3 grams in August 2008 for $100.
- The plea agreement's factual basis covered the September 3, 2008 sale and the August 14, 2008 transfer of crack.
- Presentence report attributed base offense level 30 and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; it also found Curtis to be a career offender under § 4B1.1(a) based on two qualifying prior felonies (2001 aggravated discharge of a firearm and 2006 possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance).
- Career offender status raised his adjusted level to 34, criminal history category to VI, and guideline range to 262–327 months.
- At sentencing, the district court upheld the career offender designation, rejected Curtis’s arguments about crack/powder disparity and his “low-level distributor” characterization, and sentenced him to 262 months’ imprisonment plus five years’ supervised release.
- Curtis timely appealed challenging the career offender designation and the crack/powder disparity argument; the district court’s discretionary variance was also considered on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggravated-firearm offense qualifies as a crime of violence. | Curtis contends 720 IL 5/24-1.2(a)(2) is not a crime of violence. | Curtis argues the offense lacks physical-force element under § 4B1.2(a)(1). | Curtis's conviction qualifies; the offense contains the force element and is not divisible for § 4B1.2(a). |
| Whether 720 IL 5/24-1.2(a)(2) is a divisible statute for the purposes of the modified categorical approach. | Curtis argues divisibility would force reliance on record facts to determine if violence element is present. | Curtis contends the statute is divisible, allowing examination of specific conduct. | The statute is not divisible; the conduct in (a)(2) inherently involves force against a person. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a downward variance based on crack/powder disparity and Curtis’s role. | Curtis sought variance due to disparity and street-level status. | District court considered but found his criminal history warranted a within-range sentence. | No abuse of discretion; the court properly weighed Curtis’s extensive criminal history against disparity concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Billups, 536 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of career offender determinations)
- United States v. Woods, 576 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (categorical vs. modified categorical approach to crime-of-violence)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (definition of crime-of-violence analysis guidance)
- United States v. Taylor, 630 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2010) (modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- United States v. Rice, 520 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2008) (aggravated discharge of firearm as crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a))
- Quezada-Luna v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2006) (elementary use of force considerations in related offenses)
- United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2005) (precedent on unlawful discharge of firearm and occupancy issues)
- United States v. Alfaro, 408 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2005) (comparison on elements of force when firearm aimed at occupancy)