United States v. Thomas
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4342
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant James Thomas pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 235 months, below the Guideline range of 292–365 months.
- The district court followed a multi-step pre-sentencing process: PSR prepared and distributed; counsel filed written responses; a telephonic conference occurred where counsel agreed no witnesses would be called and defense withdrew objections to the PSR range; filings memorialized the conference; the judge issued a tentative opinion a week before sentencing reducing the offense level by two; and the court held an in-person sentencing where Thomas was present and received the 235-month sentence.
- Thomas did not challenge the sentence length but argued the judge’s use of the telephonic conference (step 3) and issuance of a tentative written opinion before sentencing (step 5) violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process right because he was not physically present for those steps.
- Thomas conceded the district court complied with Rules 32 and 43(a)(3) regarding sentencing and that he was present, and spoke, at the actual sentencing hearing.
- The district court’s early opinion explicitly stated it was tentative and that the final sentence would be set only after in-court proceedings; neither Thomas nor counsel sought reconsideration at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether telephonic pre-sentencing conference without defendant present violated Due Process | Thomas: conference (step 3) deprived him of presence when court discussed sentencing issues | Government: counsel represented Thomas; legal issues can be resolved without defendant present under Rule 43(b)(3) | No violation; representation by counsel suffices for such pre-sentencing procedural matters |
| Whether issuing a tentative written opinion before sentencing violated Due Process | Thomas: judge’s tentative opinion (step 5) formed decision outside defendant’s presence and foreclosed fair hearing | Government: judges may prepare and circulate tentative views; early notice aids focused argument and does not foreclose consideration of new evidence | No violation; tentative opinions and pre-release of views are permissible and may improve fairness |
| Whether overall procedure denied notice or opportunity to be heard under Due Process | Thomas: cumulative procedure reduced his meaningful participation | Government: procedure provided more notice and opportunities than Rules require; defendant was present at sentencing and could allocute | No violation; process provided adequate notice and hearing rights |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (defendant presence required when essential to a fair hearing)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (Due Process requires notice and opportunity for a hearing)
- United States v. Burton, 543 F.3d 950 (7th Cir.) (judges may prepare opinions in chambers)
- United States v. Dill, 799 F.3d 821 (7th Cir.) (judges may entertain tentative views and remain open to new information)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir.) (context on supervised-release issues in sentencing)
Affirmed.