United States v. Hudson
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24824
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Hudson received about 20 kilograms of cocaine on consignment from Individual A in Romeoville, IL, who later cooperated with DEA.
- DEA agents located approximately $240,225 in cash, 600 grams of powder cocaine, and 80 grams of crack cocaine in a car trap during an undercover transaction.
- A later payment of $92,495 was made from the car trap in the same investigation.
- Hudson pled guilty to possessing five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm to facilitate drug trafficking.
- The district court sentenced Hudson to 120 months for the drug offense and to 60 months for the gun offense, consecutive to the drug sentence.
- Hudson challenges only the 60-month consecutive term, arguing the district court misapplied § 924(c)(1)(A) regarding its mandatory minimum when a greater minimum existed under § 841(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §924(c)(1)(A)(i)’s except clause applies when another statute imposes a greater minimum. | Hudson argues under Easter that the except clause does not permit stacking against a greater minimum from §841. | Hudson contends the exception should be read to allow no stacking if another law provides a higher minimum. | No stacking; Abbott controls; except clause applies to the §924(c) offense only when the minimum is otherwise provided for that offense. |
| Whether Easter correctly interpreted the meaning of ‘any other provision of law’ in §924(c)(1)(A). | Hudson relies on Easter's interpretation that the clause excludes underlying drug crimes from its reach. | Hudson's interpretation would misread the clause and undermine the statute’s no-stacking purpose. | Abbott overruled to align with Easter; the except clause refers to conduct punished by §924(c), not the underlying offense's minimum. |
| What is the controlling reading after Abbott v. United States (2010)? | Advances that Easter should be followed to keep the original circuit view. | Argues for Abbott's reaffirmation of Easter’s interpretation. | Abbott confirms Easter's approach; Hudson's sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Easter, 553 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of §924(c)(1)(A) except clause)
- Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (U.S. 2010) (supreme court rejects broader reading of exception; adopts no-stacking interpretation)
- United States v. Williams, 558 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2009) (second circuit reading before Abbott)
- United States v. Villa, 589 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2009) (followed Easter’s reading on §924(c) except clause)
- United States v. Segarra, 582 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2009) (followed Easter on §924(c) exception)
- United States v. London, 568 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2009) (same issue, resisted final reading before Abbott)
- United States v. Jolivette, 257 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2001) (early circuit view on §924(c) exception)
- United States v. Studifin, 240 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2001) (early circuit view on §924(c) exception)