United States v. Patrick Armand
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8739
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patrick Armand pleaded guilty to distributing crack and powder cocaine and was originally sentenced to 108 months' imprisonment and five years supervised release; this Court reversed portions of that sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- At original sentencing parties and court agreed Amendment 782 applied, yielding a Guidelines range of 84–105 months (offense level 23, CHC V).
- On remand the district court held a resentencing hearing, considered § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Armand to 104 months’ imprisonment and three years supervised release, slightly lower in recognition of rehabilitation efforts.
- Armand appealed, arguing procedural errors: the court failed to recalculate or state drug-quantity findings at resentencing, treated the Guidelines as presumptively reasonable, and did not meaningfully consider mitigation (age, mental health).
- The government and the court relied on the previously established PSR and prior sentencing record; Armand did not object to the Guidelines calculation at resentencing and his counsel affirmed that the court addressed principal mitigation arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court failed to calculate/apply advisory Guidelines at resentencing | Armand: court did not re-calculate Guidelines or state drug quantity | Government: prior sentencing record and PSR already established Guidelines and quantity; no need to redo | Court: No plain error — parties had agreed to range and court properly relied on prior record |
| Whether court treated Guidelines as presumptively reasonable | Armand: judge’s remarks showed presumption of reasonableness | Government: judge used Guidelines as benchmark and addressed § 3553(a) factors | Court: No; comments were benchmarking; meaningful § 3553(a) consideration shown |
| Whether court failed to consider principal mitigation arguments | Armand: age and mental-health treatment reduce recidivism risk | Government: Armand waived by counsel’s affirmative statement at sentencing | Court: Waived; district court asked counsel and counsel said satisfied |
| Substantive reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentence | Armand: sentence unreasonable due to mitigation and § 3553(a) factors | Government: within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable absent persuasive justification | Court: Sentence substantively reasonable; presumption not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (district court must determine applicable Guidelines range and consider it as benchmark)
- United States v. Mobley, 833 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2016) (district court may rely on record from prior sentencing)
- United States v. Claybrooks, 729 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2013) (adoption of PSR findings suffices for drug-quantity determination)
- United States v. Johnson, 635 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2011) (court may not presume Guidelines are reasonable; must show compliance with § 3553(a) parsimony principle)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (Guidelines as starting point and initial benchmark)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (within-Guidelines sentences entitled to a presumption of reasonableness)