United States v. Womack
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20591
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Womack was convicted in 2008 of distributing more than five grams of crack cocaine and sentenced to 360 months; convictions and sentences were appealed and remanded twice.
- At the 2012 resentencing, the district court correctly calculated guideline range, finding Womack as a Career Offender with offense level 34 and criminal history category 6, yielding a range of 262–327 months.
- Womack’s counsel sought a 110-month sentence based on progressive punishment and argued for a downward variance due to his history and lack of violent crimes.
- The district court declined to depart below the Guidelines, noting Womack’s extensive criminal history and pattern of violence, and imposed 262 months at the bottom of the range.
- Womack appealed raising two issues: (1) procedural error for not explicitly addressing progressive punishment, and (2) improper characterization of a prior conviction as a crime of violence.
- This Court reviews sentencing procedures de novo and then the reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion; within-Range sentences are presumed reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive punishment argument addressed? | Womack | Womack | District court adequately considered the argument; within-Guidelines sentence affirmed. |
| Prior conviction as a crime of violence? | Womack | Womack | Conviction for aggravated discharge of a firearm qualifies as a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for sentencing procedures)
- United States v. Smith, 562 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2009) (procedural review in sentencing)
- United States v. Coopman, 602 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness review after procedural ruling)
- United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (requirement to discuss defendant's mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2010) (courts need not discuss every nuance of every argument to be reasonable)
- Quezada-Luna v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2006) (aggravated discharge of a firearm (a)(1) qualifies as crime of violence under INA and § 16)
- United States v. Curtis, 645 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2011) (discharging a firearm toward a person or occupied vehicle qualifies as crime of violence)