United States v. James

555 F.3d 563, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10727, 2009 WL 273328
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. James. Read the opinion of the Court — 571 F.3d 707
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided January 20, 2009·No. No. 05-1411·Published

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

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

555 F.3d 563 (United States v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Moore
541 F.3d 1323 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
Kimbrough v. United States
552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Sharkey
543 F.3d 1236 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Liddell
543 F.3d 877 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Keifer Thomas
524 F.3d 889 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)