United States v. Rod Blagojevich
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6963
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rod Blagojevich, former Governor of Illinois, was convicted of 18 crimes and originally sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment; this court vacated five convictions and affirmed the rest in a prior decision, remanding for possible retrial and resentencing.
- While a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court was pending, district court proceedings were stayed; after certiorari was denied the prosecutor declined to retry the five vacated counts and the district court resentenced Blagojevich on the remaining 13 convictions to 168 months.
- The district court recalculated Guidelines (from 360 months–life down to an advisory range of 151–188 months) and imposed the same 168‑month sentence, explaining reliance on offense gravity and deterrence of public corruption.
- Blagojevich raised three principal challenges on the successive appeal: (1) the judge improperly discounted evidence of post‑sentencing rehabilitation; (2) the vacatur of five counts should have reduced his sentence; and (3) the judge failed to address §3553(a)(6) disparity concerns.
- The district court considered and rejected these arguments; this court affirmed, finding the judge acted within discretion (including under Pepper) and correctly treated the Guidelines and disparity issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by rejecting evidence of post‑sentencing rehabilitation under Pepper | Blagojevich: prison conduct and work with inmates show extraordinary rehabilitation and warrant a downward variance | Government: judge considered the evidence and permissibly found it unpersuasive for altering punishment for official‑act corruption | Held: No abuse of discretion; judge sufficiently considered Pepper and reasonably declined downward variance |
| Whether vacatur of five counts required a lower sentence | Blagojevich: removal of five convictions reduces the seriousness and should lower sentence | Government: remaining convictions reflect the same corrupt conduct; judge may consider full record despite prosecutor declining retrial | Held: No; judge appropriately considered vacatur and found it did not change Guidelines range or justify reduction |
| Whether judge failed to address §3553(a)(6) unwarranted‑disparities argument | Blagojevich: 168 months is disparate compared with other political‑corruption sentences | Government: properly calculated Guidelines range already accounts for disparity concerns; following Guidelines satisfies §3553(a)(6) | Held: No reversible error; sentencing within Guidelines range affords adequate consideration of disparities (Gall principle) |
| Whether McDonnell undermines affirmance of convictions | Blagojevich: McDonnell narrows “official act,” potentially affecting his convictions | Government: Blagojevich’s conduct involved classic official acts (appointments, signing legislation), not the narrowed McDonnell theory | Held: McDonnell does not alter the ruling; convictions stand as affirmed in prior opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (district courts may consider postsentencing rehabilitation at resentencing and it can support a downward variance)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (brief, adequate reasons suffice for a within‑Guidelines sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (adherence to properly calculated Guidelines gives due consideration to §3553(a)(6) disparities)
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (interpreted the scope of “official act” in corruption prosecutions)
- United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussing sentencing departures and disparity tradeoffs)
- United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (treatment of Guidelines and §3553 considerations)
- United States v. Blagojevich, 794 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior opinion affirming most convictions, vacating five, and directing remand)