United States v. James

Seventh Circuit

United States v. James

555 F.3d 563, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10727, 2009 WL 273328

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

DocketNo. 05-1411

StatusPublished

This text of 555 F.3d 563 (United States v. James) 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. James, 555 F.3d 563, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10727, 2009 WL 273328 (7th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT’S MOTION URGING REMAND, which this court construed as a PETITION FOR REHEARING, filed on November 25, 2008, by the pro se appellant,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. Appellant Louis James was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), does not apply to him because his applicable guidelines range was driven entirely by his career-offender status and the amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not have the effect of lowering his applicable guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n. 1(A); United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877, 882 n. 3 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir.2008); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir.2008); United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir.2008).

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

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT’S MOTION URGING REMAND, which this court construed as a PETITION FOR REHEARING, filed on November 25, 2008, by the pro se appellant,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. Appellant Louis James was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), does not apply to him because his applicable guidelines range was driven entirely by his career-offender status and the amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not have the effect of lowering his applicable guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n. 1(A); United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877, 882 n. 3 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir.2008); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir.2008); United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir.2008).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 F.3d 563, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10727, 2009 WL 273328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-ca7-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack