United States v. Larry Purnell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24781
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Larry Purnell pled guilty in 2007 to crack cocaine distribution (>5 g) and to possessing/using a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.
- Purnell received 78 months for the crack offense; the plea allowed reduction for acceptance of responsibility; a gun charge carried a 60-month consecutive sentence.
- In 2011 the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered crack guideline ranges; if applied then, Purnell’s range would be 63–78 months for the crack offense.
- Purnell moved for a §3582(c)(2) sentence reduction; district court denied, noting his sentence remained within the amended range and citing his post- sentence false statements.
- Purnell’s post-conviction filings contradicted sworn statements in his plea colloquy and plea agreement (e.g., gun type), and were previously rejected as unfounded or barred.
- This appeal asks whether the district court abused its discretion by weighing post-conviction conduct against a §3582(c)(2) reduction; the Seventh Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the denial rely on post-conviction false statements? | Purnell contends the court erred by considering post-conviction conduct to deny relief. | Court may weigh post-conviction conduct under 3553(a) and 1B1.10. | No abuse; district court properly weighed post-conviction conduct. |
| Must the court analyze every 3553(a) factor? | Not required to address every factor. | Must consider applicable factors, not all in detail. | Not required to analyze every factor; must articulate a reasonable basis. |
| Is post-conviction conduct a permissible basis under 1B1.10/Note 1(B)? | Post-conviction conduct should not determine relief. | Post-conviction conduct is a permissible basis for denial. | Permissible basis; district court could rely on it. |
| Did the district court err by denying relief when the sentence remained within the amended range? | Reduction should be available if within the retroactive range. | Denial appropriate where within range and conduct weighs against relief. | District court’s denial affirmed; sentence remained within amended range. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 682 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for §3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Johnson, 580 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2009) (post-conviction factors need not be analyzed factor-by-factor)
- United States v. Marion, 590 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2009) (requirement to articulate basis consistent with 3553(a))
- United States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009) (post-conviction conduct can justify denial under 1B1.10)
- United States v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2005) (defendant has no entitlement to benefit by contradicting sworn statements)
- United States v. Stewart, 198 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 1999) (perjury at plea hearing undermines entitlement to relief)