Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cr-00832_de98> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cr-00832_de98 RegisterActionDate "2011-07-22" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cr-00832_de98 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 4A1160F regarding notice of appeal 74 : This is defendant 4A1160F second appeal of his sentence for the distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 4A1160F pleaded guilty and originally received the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. At the time of his plea, he already had been convicted in Illinois state court for an unrelated state offense, unlawful possession of a firearm. At the time of his federal sentencing, 4A1160F had served 18 months on the latter conviction. 4A1160F asked the district court to run his federal sentence concurrently with his state sentence. The judge could accomplish this by ordering only an additional 102 months in prison; that term, stacked with the 18 months he had already served on the state offense, would add up to the 120-month mandatory minimum required by § 841(b)(1)(A). By the time of the remand, 4A1160F had served another 14 months on the state sentence. The district court was persuaded to exercise its discretion in accordance with 4A1160F wishes; it thus sentenced him to 88 months imprisonment, which was the time now needed to reach the total of 120 months. 4A1160F, nonetheless, has brought a new appeal to this court. He now argues that he is entitled to be re-sentenced in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which took effect after his trial. The FSA increased the quantities of crack cocaine required to trigger the mandatory maxima and minima stipulated by the statute. 4A1160F argues that these more lenient rules should apply to defendants (like him) who committed the charged offense prior to the passage of the FSA but were sentenced after the FSA's enactment. We addressed and rejected precisely this argument in United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336, 340 (7th Cir. 2011), reh'g en banc denied, F.3d 2011 WL 2022959 (7th Cir. May 25, 2011) ("[W]e reaffirm our finding that the FSA does not apply retroactively, and further find that the relevant date for a determination of retroactivity is the date of the underlying criminal conduct, not the date of sentencing."). We see no reason to upset such a recent and thorough look at the question. 4A1160F has done what he needed to do to preserve this question for further review. AFFIRMED.(yap, ) (Entered: 07/22/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cr-00832_de98 AdministrativeID "93" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cr-00832_de98 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cr-00832_de79 @default.