United States v. Anderson

279 F. App'x 267
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Anderson. Read the opinion of the Court — 161 F. App'x 253
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 23, 2008·No. 07-4064·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

James M. Anderson pled guilty to distributing a quantity of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and was sentenced to a term of 108 months imprisonment. Anderson appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by seeking to impose a “reasonable” sentence rather than a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.CA. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2007), and failed to consider adequately the effect of the 100:1 sentencing ratio for cocaine and crack offenses in his case. He also claimed that his sentence was greater than necessary to further the purposes of § 3553(a)(2). We affirmed his sentence; however, the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). See United States v. Anderson, 241 Fed.Appx. 912 (4th Cir.2007), vacated, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 913, 169 L.Ed.2d 719 (2008).

In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court held that “it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary1 to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 575. *268 Kimbrough has thus abrogated United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir.2006) (holding that sentencing court may not vary from guideline range solely because of 100:1 ratio for crack/cocaine offenses), vacated, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 853, — L.Ed.2d - (2008). The district court did not have the benefit of Kimbrough when it determined Anderson’s sentence. To give the district court the opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Kimbrough, we conclude that resentencing is necessary.

We therefore vacate the sentence imposed by the district court and remand for resentencing. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

On remand, Anderson will be resentenced under the revised guidelines for crack offenses that took effect on November 1, 2007.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Anderson, 279 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2008).

279 F. App'x 267 (United States v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kimbrough v. United States
552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Anderson
241 F. App'x 912 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
Eura v. United States
128 S. Ct. 853 (Supreme Court, 2008)