United States v. Tommy Adams
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3697
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Four coconspirators (Gill, Bostic, Adams, Hunter) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin; Hunter had a blind plea.
- Hunter appeals denial of suppression motion; government did not acquiesce to a conditional plea and thus the appeal is dismissed.
- Adams challenges the district court’s calculation of heroin quantity, arguing he was not jointly undertook in the distribution with others.
- Gill challenges the two-level stash-house enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) and seeks resentencing based on a correct range.
- Bostic challenges the voluntariness of his blind guilty plea and challenges the stash-house enhancement; district court’s handling of violence in sentencing is also raised.
- Court remands Gill and Bostic for resentencing on the limited issue of the correct guideline range due to Ex Post Facto concerns; no general remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hunter may appeal pretrial rulings after a blind guilty plea | Hunter argues denial of suppression should be reviewable. | Government contends waiver precludes appeal due to blind plea; no conditional plea. | Waiver bars appeal of suppression ruling; dismissal affirmed for Hunter. |
| Whether Adams is liable for quantities sold by others under § 1B1.3 | Adams contends only his own sales determine quantity; others not jointly undertaken. | Government argues Adams participated in jointly undertaken activity with Bagley and others. | District court did not clearly err; Adams liable for one to three kilograms. |
| Whether Gill’s stash-house enhancement violated Ex Post Facto and requires remand | Gill contends enhancement was improper retroactively in light of Peugh. | Government concedes Ex Post Facto issue; remand necessary to correct range. | Ex Post Facto violation; remand for limited resentencing on correct range. |
| Whether Bostic’s stash-house enhancement violates Ex Post Facto and whether plea was knowing and voluntary | Bostic argues stash-house enhancement and potential plea defect; seeks relief. | Government concedes Ex Post Facto issue; plea valid under Rule 11; sentencing challenge on violence merits review. | Ex Post Facto remand for Bostic; plea found knowing and voluntary; limited remand permitted for range correction. |
| Whether the district court’s handling of violence in sentencing violated § 3553 requirements | Defendants contend insufficient specificity in attributing violence. | Government asserts court adequately considered § 3553 factors without explicit act-by-act findings. | Generally adequate under § 3553; no reversible error in absence of explicit firearm/murder findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adigun, 703 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2012) (unconditional guilty plea precludes appeal of pretrial rulings; Rule 11 requirements)
- United States v. Combs, 657 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional bar for conditional plea without government consent)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (ex post facto limitations on use of guidelines at sentencing)
- United States v. Barnes, 660 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2011) (remand scope and arguments for resentencing; general remand limitations)
- United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (limited remand procedures; retaining jurisdiction)
- United States v. Simms, 721 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2013) (second-round remand considerations; mandamus and law-of-the-case limits)
- United States v. Williams, 742 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 2014) (remand proceedings when guideline calculation errors occur)
- United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006) (Ex Post Facto and discretion on guideline usage)