United States v. Donte Roberts

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Donte Roberts

344 F. App'x 287

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 2009

Docket09-1391

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 344 F. App'x 287 (United States v. Donte Roberts) 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. Donte Roberts, 344 F. App'x 287 (7th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

After the Sentencing Commission lowered the guideline ranges for crack cocaine, Donte Roberts filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), asking the judge to reduce his sentence. The judge found Roberts eligible but declined to reduce the sentence. The judge observed that Roberts has been formally disciplined more than 20 times for violations of prison rules, that some of his prison misconduct is serious, and that the frequency of violations has not decreased with time. The judge deemed Roberts a poor candidate for accelerated release.

Roberts filed a notice of appeal. His lawyer has submitted an Anders brief explaining why the appeal is frivolous. Roberts was invited to respond, see Circuit Rule 51, and has not done so. There are only three potential appellate arguments: that reduction is mandatory; that the judge misunderstood Roberts’s intra-prison record; or that failure to reduce the sentence was an abuse of discretion. The statute shows that the district judge is not required to reduce a sentence just because the range has gone down, so the first *289 argument would be frivolous. Roberts has never argued that the judge misunderstood the number or gravity of his intra-prison transgressions, ruling out the second line of argument. And given his extensive intra-prison record, it would be impossible to say that refusing to expedite his release from prison is an abuse of discretion.

Roberts argued in the district court that the judge could use § 3582(c) to apply United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), or Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), retroactively. The judge properly rejected that contention. See United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.2009).

We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

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

Order

After the Sentencing Commission lowered the guideline ranges for crack cocaine, Donte Roberts filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), asking the judge to reduce his sentence. The judge found Roberts eligible but declined to reduce the sentence. The judge observed that Roberts has been formally disciplined more than 20 times for violations of prison rules, that some of his prison misconduct is serious, and that the frequency of violations has not decreased with time. The judge deemed Roberts a poor candidate for accelerated release.

Roberts filed a notice of appeal. His lawyer has submitted an Anders brief explaining why the appeal is frivolous. Roberts was invited to respond, see Circuit Rule 51, and has not done so. There are only three potential appellate arguments: that reduction is mandatory; that the judge misunderstood Roberts’s intra-prison record; or that failure to reduce the sentence was an abuse of discretion. The statute shows that the district judge is not required to reduce a sentence just because the range has gone down, so the first *289 argument would be frivolous. Roberts has never argued that the judge misunderstood the number or gravity of his intra-prison transgressions, ruling out the second line of argument. And given his extensive intra-prison record, it would be impossible to say that refusing to expedite his release from prison is an abuse of discretion.

Roberts argued in the district court that the judge could use § 3582(c) to apply United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), or Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), retroactively. The judge properly rejected that contention. See United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.2009).

We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F. App'x 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-donte-roberts-ca7-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack