United States v. Redmond, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 606

Joint federal-state-local investigation uncovered a crack cocaine conspiracy shipping from Chicago to Evansville, with Avery identified as a distributor and Redmond involved in conspiracy; firearms trafficking also linked to the network.
February–August 2008 included controlled buys and seizures; wire surveillance of phones corroborated involvement by Avery and Redmond.
Indictment charged Redmond, Avery, and seventeen co-defendants in 35 counts involving crack cocaine and firearms trafficking.
Avery pled guilty to counts 5 and 7 (distributions); conspiracy charge dismissed; no plea agreement; district court later sentenced him with disputed crack quantity and career-offender status.
Redmond pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute for over 50 grams of crack cocaine; district court treated him as a career offender with an advisory range of 262–327 months, then imposed 240-month sentence after downward deviation.
On appeal, Avery challenges denial of withdrawal of his plea, crack quantity, and career-offender status; Redmond challenges his sentence and receives a limited remand to reconsider in light of Corner.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Avery's plea withdrawal	Avery argues fair and just reason due to disputed facts on quantity, career-offender status, and acceptance adjustment	Avery pled without a plea agreement and understood potential relevant-conduct issues; no guaranteed outcomes	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether the crack cocaine quantity attributed to Avery for sentencing was proper	Government contends 51.5 grams reasonably foreseeable; reflects conduct beyond two stipulation buys	Avery argues only two bought quantities were agreed; conspiracy weights should not be attributed	Quantity tied to career-offender status; even if contested, career-offender status makes quantity largely irrelevant; affirmed
Whether the court understood its discretion to depart from guidelines; remand warranted for Redmond (Corner) and affirmance for Avery	Court should indicate awareness of authority to depart; Corner permits categorical variance	Court’s statements show potential flexibility but need clarity; Corner issued after Redmond; remand appropriate for Redmond; Avery: authorities indicate discretion evident	Limited remand for Redmond to reconsider sentence consistent with Corner; affirmed as to Avery

Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2005) (fair and just reason for withdrawing plea; voluntariness/knowingness requirements)
Chavers v. United States, 515 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.2008) (heavy burden to show fair and just reason after plea; presumption of truth in plea colloquy)
Bowlin v. United States, 534 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.2008) (understanding of sentence vs. substantive offense; acceptance of responsibility standard)
Gilliam v. United States, 255 F.3d 428 (7th Cir.2001) (misperception about sentence not a basis to withdraw plea)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (advisory nature of crack-cocaine Guidelines; district courts may vary from guidelines)
Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (S. Ct. 2009) (clarified district courts’ authority to vary from crack-cocaine Guidelines)
Corner v. United States, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir.2010) (en banc; district courts may depart from guidelines, including career-offender guidelines)
Damerville v. United States, 197 F.3d 287 (7th Cir.1999) (career-offender context lacks §851 prerequisites; notice not required for §4B1.1)
Galati v. United States, 230 F.3d 254 (7th Cir.2000) (notice under §851 not required for career-offender sentences)
United States v. Cavender, 228 F.3d 792 (7th Cir.2000) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review on post-plea withdrawal)
Rosalez-Cortez v. United States, 19 F.3d 1210 (7th Cir.1994) (timeliness considerations for acceptance of responsibility)