United States v. Taylor
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25914
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- In 2002, Taylor pleaded guilty to bank robbery and was sentenced by the District of Minnesota.
- In 2007 Taylor began supervised release, and in August 2008 attempted another bank robbery in South Bend, Indiana.
- Taylor pleaded guilty to the 2008 robbery on May 7, 2009; a single sentencing hearing addressed both the robbery and supervised-release violations.
- The probation officer's report recommended 18–24 months and indicated § 7B1.3(f) favored consecutive sentencing.
- At sentencing on February 1, 2010, the court imposed 168 months for the robbery and 12 months for the supervised-release violation, consecutive to each other.
- Taylor appealed, arguing mainly about the sequencing; the notice of appeal referenced only one case number.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7B1.3(f) was treated as mandatory | Taylor argued it was advisory; government argued it mandated consecutive terms. | Taylor urged discretion to choose concurrent/consecutive; no strict mandate. | Policy statement advisory; court erred in treating it as mandatory. |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction was proper given the single case number in the notice | Notice sufficiently reflected intent to appeal the entire sentencing package. | Noncompliance with Rule 3(c) could bar appeal, but intent may be inferred. | Notice was sufficient; jurisdiction proper under liberal construction. |
| Required remedy for the sentencing error | Limited remand to reconsider whether sentences should be concurrent, partially concurrent, or consecutive. | Agree with limited remand to allow reconsideration. | Affirmed sentences but ordered limited remand to reconsider consecutivity. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (limited remand when guidelines advisory)
- United States v. Santiago, 428 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2005) (remand when guideline advisement not mandatory)
- United States v. Harvey, 232 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2000) (supervised-release policy statements nonbinding but weighty)
- United States v. Hill, 48 F.3d 228 (7th Cir. 1995) (policy statements not substitutes for discretion)
- United States v. McClanahan, 136 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 1998) (policy statements are an element of discretion, not a mandate)