United States v. James E. Caldwell

Eighth Circuit

United States v. James E. Caldwell

290 F. App'x 963

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 2008

Docket06-2198

StatusUnpublished

This text of 290 F. App'x 963 (United States v. James E. Caldwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 E. Caldwell, 290 F. App'x 963 (8th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Caldwell pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing “crack” cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and was sentenced to 100 months in prison, which was the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal we affirmed, rejecting Caldwell’s argument that the sentence was unreasonable because the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked discretion to vary below the advisory Guidelines range based on the sentencing differential between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007).

We review the sentence for reasonableness, first ensuring that the district court did not commit a significant procedural error. See United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 747 (8th Cir.2008). Kimbrough instructs that a district court may consider the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity in determining whether a within-Guidelines sentence is appropriate. See 128 S.Ct. at 564, 575. Consequently, it was a significant procedural error for the district court to conclude it lacked such discretion. See United States v. Tabor, 531 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir.2008) (significant procedural error occurs if district court fails to understand scope of its authority and discretion at sentencing). This error was not harmless because it is not clear from the sentencing record whether the court would have varied downward based on the crack/powder cocaine disparity if it had known it could do so. See id. (error is harmless only if appeals court is convinced that error did not affect district court’s sentencing conclusion); see also United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 855, 860 (8th Cir.2008) (remanding for resen-tencing because it was unclear from sentencing record whether district court *965 would have granted defendant’s request for downward variance based on crack/powder cocaine disparity if it had known it could so).

Accordingly, we vacate Caldwell’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Caldwell pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing “crack” cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and was sentenced to 100 months in prison, which was the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal we affirmed, rejecting Caldwell’s argument that the sentence was unreasonable because the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked discretion to vary below the advisory Guidelines range based on the sentencing differential between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007).

We review the sentence for reasonableness, first ensuring that the district court did not commit a significant procedural error. See United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 747 (8th Cir.2008). Kimbrough instructs that a district court may consider the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity in determining whether a within-Guidelines sentence is appropriate. See 128 S.Ct. at 564, 575. Consequently, it was a significant procedural error for the district court to conclude it lacked such discretion. See United States v. Tabor, 531 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir.2008) (significant procedural error occurs if district court fails to understand scope of its authority and discretion at sentencing). This error was not harmless because it is not clear from the sentencing record whether the court would have varied downward based on the crack/powder cocaine disparity if it had known it could do so. See id. (error is harmless only if appeals court is convinced that error did not affect district court’s sentencing conclusion); see also United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 855, 860 (8th Cir.2008) (remanding for resen-tencing because it was unclear from sentencing record whether district court *965 would have granted defendant’s request for downward variance based on crack/powder cocaine disparity if it had known it could so).

Accordingly, we vacate Caldwell’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 F. App'x 963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-e-caldwell-ca8-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack