United States v. Arch

502 F. App'x 614
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedApril 18, 2013
DocketNo. 12-2953
StatusPublished

This text of 502 F. App'x 614 (United States v. Arch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Arch, 502 F. App'x 614 (7th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

ORDER

Shaon Arch pleaded guilty to one count of illegally possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A PSR was prepared, which calculated Arch’s base offense at 14 because he had prior drug convictions that did not meet the definition of a controlled substance violation under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. The probation office later submitted an addendum to the PSR, increasing Arch’s base level from 14 to 20 pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(4). This increase was based on a prior drug conviction for conspiracy in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois. The probation office relied on a copy of the underlying indictment, which charged Arch with delivering cocaine in violation of the relevant Illinois complied statutes, in making this increase. The district court accepted the elevated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and sentenced Arch to 84 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release.

Arch now contends the elevated base offense level in the addendum was improper because the underlying indictment includes counts that were later dismissed. In other words, the district court could not reasonably rely on the document to increase his sentence under § 2K2.1(a)(4) because the document did not explain whether Arch had been convicted of a distribution offense, which satisfies § 4B1.2, or a possession offense, which might not.

At oral argument, Arch’s counsel presented the Court with a newly-discovered document that shows Arch’s charges from the drug conspiracy indictment were amended. The parties then stated that they were in agreement the case should be remanded to determine whether the newly-discovered document would have affected Arch’s sentence. In light of this document and the parties’ agreement, we REMAND this case for further consideration.

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

Related

Unlawful acts
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
502 F. App'x 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arch-ca7-2013.