United States v. Ladonta Gill
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9835
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gill and Bostic pled guilty to participating in a large heroin-distribution conspiracy controlled by Bostic; investigations seized >8 kg heroin and multiple firearms.
- Both were initially sentenced with a 2-level "stash house" enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(12)); both appealed challenging that enhancement as an Ex Post Facto violation after Peugh.
- Gill: first sentenced to 329 months (criminal history category III) in 2012; after Adams remand/Peugh, resentenced in 2014 to 280 months; he challenges his criminal history points (AUUW conviction) and supervised-release conditions.
- Bostic: first sentenced in 2012 to 456 months (offense level including stash-house); after Adams remand/Peugh, resentenced in 2015 to 360 months; he challenges procedural and substantive aspects of his sentence, arguing (inter alia) the court failed to account for the ex post facto problem and failed to notify him that the original sentence was effectively above the Guidelines.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated Gill’s sentence and remanded for complete resentencing (criminal-history and supervised-release findings defective); it affirmed Bostic’s resentencing (no procedural error and substantive sentence reasonable).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of AUUW-based criminal-history points (Gill) | Gill: AUUW statute portions were held unconstitutional; points should not count under U.S.S.G. §4A1.2 n.6 | Government: Gill waived the challenge by not raising it earlier | Court: Forfeiture, not waiver; plain error — points improperly counted; remand for resentencing |
| Adequacy of findings for supervised-release conditions (Gill) | Gill: District court failed to make required findings per Thompson and progeny | Government: Challenge was forfeited / not preserved earlier | Court: Forfeited; Thompson governs and district court failed to make adequate findings — vacatur and complete resentencing required |
| Procedural sufficiency of sentencing explanation (Bostic) | Bostic: Court failed to account for ex post facto nature of stash-house enhancement and did not inform him original sentence was effectively above-Guidelines | Government/District Court: Court accounted for ex post facto concern as a §3553(a) consideration and explained reasons at resentencing | Court: No procedural error — district court explained which factors influenced sentence and its reasoning re: an "effective" above-Guidelines sentence |
| Substantive reasonableness of above-Guidelines sentence (Bostic) | Bostic: Above-Guidelines sentence was unreasonable | Government/District Court: Court adequately articulated §3553(a) reasons (violence, leadership, guidelines didn’t capture conduct) | Court: Sentence was substantively reasonable and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adams, 746 F.3d 734 (7th Cir.) (remanding Gill/Bostic for resentencing in light of Peugh)
- United States v. Jenkins, 772 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review where AUUW-based criminal-history points were improperly counted)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding portions of Illinois AUUW statute unconstitutional)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (Ex Post Facto Clause bars use of Guidelines promulgated after offense date when they increase applicable range)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (error in supervised-release conditions may require complete resentencing)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (district court must make adequate findings for supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Abebe, 651 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2011) (procedural requirements at sentencing: calculate range, allow §3553(a) arguments, state factors influencing sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences)