United States v. Vance
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19591
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Vance was indicted on two counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and pleaded guilty to both counts without a plea agreement.
- PSR calculated a total offense level of 34 and an advisory Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months, with career-offender status and a criminal history Category VI.
- District court sentenced Vance to 262 months’ imprisonment and 8 years of supervised release, within the Guidelines range.
- Vance argued for a below-Guidelines sentence based on crack/powder disparity and the Fair Sentencing Act, but the court did not depart.
- FSA, enacted after the offenses, was held not to apply to Vance’s pre-Act conduct; the court’s sentence would remain reasonable even if applied.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment, with a dissent noting potential insufficiency in addressing the crack/powder disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court adequately consider crack/powder disparity? | Vance contends the court failed to address disparity. | USA contends the court acknowledged disparity and found it unpersuasive. | No reversible error; the court acknowledged disparity and considered it, but found it unpersuasive. |
| Does the Fair Sentencing Act apply to pre-Act conduct when sentencing after enactment? | Vance argues Act would reduce penalties and affect sentence. | USA argues Act does not retroactively apply; if applied, sentence would still be reasonable. | Act does not apply to Vance; even if applied, sentence remains reasonable under Act’s terms. |
| Was the 3553(a) reasoning adequately articulated to support the sentence? | Vance asserts the judge failed to articulate factors and consider non-guidelines factors. | USA asserts the judge discussed relevant factors with sufficient detail. | Yes; the judge adequately explained the factors and supported the within-range sentence. |
| Is the within-Guidelines sentence entitled to deference and within discretionary range? | Vance argues for below-Guidelines sentence due to policy considerations. | USA maintains deference to his within-range sentence is proper. | Yes; the sentence was within a properly calculated range and is reasonable under deferential review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing appeals)
- United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (court may consider crack/powder disparity; not required to grant relief)
- United States v. Scott, 555 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2009) (adherence to policy judgments may justify Guidelines-based sentences)
- United States v. Simms, 626 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2010) (limited remands to ensure sentencing discretion understood)
- United States v. Bell, 585 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussion of Fair Sentencing Act implications in sentencing)
- United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011) (Act applies only to conduct after August 3, 2010)
- United States v. Holcomb, 657 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2011) (panel examined retroactive application of FSA)