United States v. Ladonta Gill
889 F.3d 373
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Gill was a high-level member of a heroin distribution organization led by Dana Bostic; he pled guilty in 2011 to conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute.
- After an earlier state conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (related to a retaliatory shooting), Gill was federally indicted and pleaded guilty by written plea declaration.
- This is Gill’s third appeal: the case was remanded twice previously (one remand for an improper 2-level drug-premises enhancement; another for use of the state conviction in criminal-history calculation and supervised-release findings).
- On the third sentencing, the district court set offense level 36, criminal-history category I (after removal of the state conviction), and a mandatory 20-year minimum, yielding a 240-month guidelines range; the court imposed 264 months (above-guidelines) and 10 years’ supervised release.
- At resentencing, the court denied Gill a 2-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because Gill did not surrender for ~10 months and his written plea omitted his fugitive status; Gill argued this denial and alleged unwarranted sentencing disparity with codefendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gill was entitled to a 2-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Gill: plea and disclosures show acceptance of responsibility | Gov: denial was proper; court considered Gill’s delayed surrender and omissions | Denial was not clearly erroneous; district court decision affirmed |
| Whether sentencing produced unwarranted disparities with codefendants | Gill: 264-month sentence was disproportionately high compared to most codefendants | Gov: court considered disparities and properly explained upward variance; some disparities stemmed from prosecutorial decisions | No procedural or substantive error; district court adequately explained reasons and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adams, 746 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2014) (prior appeal addressing improper drug-premises enhancement)
- United States v. Gill, 824 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2016) (prior appeal remanding for criminal-history and supervised-release findings)
- United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2015) (sentencing court’s acceptance-of-responsibility determination entitled to great deference)
- United States v. Sellers, 595 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2010) (guilty plea alone does not guarantee acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment)
- United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2016) (district court may address issues on full remand)
- United States v. Prado, 743 F.3d 248 (7th Cir. 2014) (district court must consider unwarranted sentence disparities under § 3553(a)(6))
- United States v. Carter, 538 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2008) (review of substantive reasonableness focuses on sentencing court’s explanation)
- United States v. Aldridge, 642 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2011) (upholding above-guidelines sentence where district court provided adequate statement of reasons)
- United States v. Hill, 683 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2012) (differences in co-defendant sentences do not alone render a sentence unreasonable)
- United States v. Sumner, 325 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2003) (law-of-the-case doctrine limits changes in litigation position on successive appeals)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1988) (law-of-the-case doctrine is not a limit on appellate power)
- United States v. Scott, 631 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2011) (prosecutor’s charging or dismissal decisions, not the court, can create disparities)