United States v. Lajuan Fitzpatrick, 32 F.4th 644

Members of two gangs (Latin Kings and Black P. Stones) planned an armed robbery of Anthony Martinez’s house to steal "pounds" of marijuana for consumption and resale; Lajuan Fitzpatrick was recruited by a roommate, Mark Cherry.
On the night of the robbery, Fitzpatrick stayed in a car after being given an assault rifle; Cherry and Bruce Hendry entered the house masked and armed, and a violent shootout ensued after Martinez resisted.
Cherry was shot, an uninvolved friend was fatally wounded by the gunfire, and Fitzpatrick fired from the street, fled the scene, attempted to destroy bloody clothing, and evaded immediate arrest.
A grand jury indicted Fitzpatrick on (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and (2) murder resulting from carrying/using a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (j)); he was convicted on both counts.
The district court adopted a Guidelines calculation (life on Count 2 under the Guidelines), sentenced Fitzpatrick to 432 months on Count 2 (concurrent one day on Count 1), and denied post-trial acquittal/new-trial motions.
On appeal Fitzpatrick challenged (a) sufficiency of the evidence for the conspiracy conviction and (b) substantive unreasonableness of his 36-year sentence (arguing it was effectively a life term and disparate compared to co-defendants).

Issue	Fitzpatrick's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana (Count 1)	No evidence he knew or agreed the robbery was to obtain drugs for resale; he stayed in the car and did not hear resell plans	Circumstantial evidence (armed operation, Cherry’s statements, Fitzpatrick’s role arming/firing/covering escape, destroying evidence) supports inference he joined a drug-distribution conspiracy	Affirmed — a reasonable jury could infer intent to distribute from totality of circumstances (Lewis logic applied)
Sentence is an "effective life" sentence	432 months exceeds his statistical life expectancy, so the court should have addressed that concern explicitly	Projected BOP release date and district court’s §3553(a) reasoning show it is not de facto life or was adequately justified	Affirmed — projected release date and adequate §3553(a) explanation make sentence reasonable
Sentencing disparity with co-defendants	Fitzpatrick’s sentence is unreasonably harsh relative to Hendry, Cherry, Nieto	Co-defendants received different sentences for legitimate reasons (cooperation, prior history, role); disparity justified	Affirmed — differences justified by cooperation, leadership role, criminal history; no unwarranted disparity

United States v. Peterson, 823 F.3d 1113 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal)
United States v. Anderson, 988 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2021) (sufficiency review: view evidence favorably to government)
United States v. Lewis, 641 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial evidence can support intent-to-distribute inference in armed-stash-house robberies)
United States v. Pulgar, 789 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2015) (elements of drug conspiracy: agreement and knowing, intentional joinder)
United States v. Orlando, 819 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2016) (need not join conspiracy at inception or participate in all acts)
United States v. Cruse, 805 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2015) (circumstantial evidence must be assessed holistically for conspiracy)
United States v. Kindle, 698 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2012) (high bar to overturn jury verdict for insufficiency)
United States v. Patrick, 707 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2013) (district court should appreciate when a sentence is effectively life)
United States v. Cheek, 740 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2014) (Patrick limited: no per se requirement to address life-expectancy if court’s intent not to impose life is clear)
United States v. McDonald, 981 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2020) (upholding de facto life sentence where court adequately explained §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (sentences within Guidelines carry presumption of reasonableness; cooperation justifies disparity)