United States v. Ikegwuonu, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10617

Background

Twin brothers Ifeanyichukwu “Jack” and Chukwuemeka “William” Ikegwuonu pled guilty to five Hobbs Act robberies and one § 924(c)(1) count for brandishing a firearm during those robberies.
The robberies involved displaying a nonfunctional, unloaded handgun and stealing $1,643 total; proceeds were used to buy heroin.
Probation calculated guideline ranges of 63–78 months for the robbery convictions for each defendant, plus a mandatory consecutive 7-year minimum for the § 924(c) count.
Each brother sought a significantly below-guidelines sentence (Jack: no prison; William: credited time served), arguing the mandatory § 924(c) term made additional prison time unnecessary.
The district court imposed below-guidelines robbery sentences (30 months for Jack; 24 months for William) but also indicated it considered the § 924(c) consecutive sentence in its overall sentencing reasoning.
Defendants appealed, arguing the court should have been free to fully account for the mandatory consecutive § 924(c) sentence when sentencing the robberies and asked the Seventh Circuit to overrule United States v. Roberson.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing court may reduce an underlying-offense sentence to account for a mandatory consecutive § 924(c) term	Government: sentencing for underlying offenses must be determined independently	Defendants: district court should be allowed to offset or fully consider the mandatory consecutive § 924(c) sentence when sentencing underlying robbery counts; ask to overrule Roberson	Court affirmed Roberson: sentencing for underlying crimes must be set independently of the mandatory consecutive § 924(c) term; defendants’ request to overrule Roberson denied
Whether Roberson should be overruled given sentencing statutes and Booker/Pepper	Government: Roberson remains controlling; no supervening authority compels change	Defendants: Roberson conflicts with § 3553(a)/§ 3661, Booker, Pepper, and ordinary "sentencing package" practice	Court rejected arguments; Roberson remains good law — general sentencing statutes and Booker/Pepper do not permit disregarding statutory minimums
Standard of review for raising Roberson challenge on appeal	Government: defendants forfeited the argument; review is for plain error	Defendants: sought to press Roberson challenge for first time on appeal	Court applied plain-error standard and declined to overturn circuit precedent absent compelling reasons
Whether district court improperly considered § 924(c) in sentencing despite Roberson	Government: district court acknowledged Roberson but did consider § 924(c) to some degree	Defendants: argued court should have factored § 924(c) more fully to reduce robbery terms	Court noted district court did reference § 924(c) but reaffirmed that any reduction to offset the § 924(c) term would contravene Roberson; affirmed sentences

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding sentencing for underlying offenses must be determined independently of mandatory consecutive § 924(c) terms)
United States v. Kirklin, 727 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review noted when issues not preserved below)
Santos v. United States, 461 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2006) (respect for circuit precedent absent supervening developments)
United States v. Calabrese, 572 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2009) (declining to overrule Roberson)
United States v. Dooley, 688 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 2012) (endorsement of Roberson’s independent-sentence approach)
United States v. Williams, 599 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2010) (agreeing with Roberson’s reasoning)
United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) (agreeing with Roberson’s reasoning)
United States v. Edmond, 815 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2016) (post-Roberson appellate decision adopting similar rule)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (discussing sentencing discretion and use of § 3661 evidence; does not authorize disregarding statutory minimums)

Disposition: Affirmed.