United States v. James Harper

311 F. App'x 923
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedFebruary 24, 2009
Docket08-3302
StatusUnpublished

This text of 311 F. App'x 923 (United States v. James Harper) 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 Harper, 311 F. App'x 923 (7th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

Order

James Harper was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment for crack-cocaine offenses. Last year we remanded so that the district court could consider how to use the discretion it possesses under Kim-brough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). On remand the judge reduced Harper’s sentence to 188 months. He has appealed a second time, but his lawyer proposes to withdraw, concluding after an analysis under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 264, 87 S.Ct. 1032, 18 L.Ed.2d 40 (1967), that there is no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Harper was invited to respond, see Circuit Rule 51, but has not done so.

We agree with counsel that an appeal would be frivolous. Kimbrough holds that district judges possess discretion to reduce sentences for crack cocaine, but that decision and its successors, such as Spears v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 840, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009), do not require the judge to grant any, or any particular, reduction. We do not see any reason to think that the district judge misunderstood the extent of her discretion after Kim-brough when reducing this sentence by 16 *925 months rather than some different amount, or that the judge took any inappropriate matter into account. The judge gave Harper the benefit of the lower Guideline for crack cocaine recently established by the Sentencing Commission. The sentence, which is at the low end of the range determined under the amended crack-cocaine Guideline, is reasonable.

Any other potential argument was raised and rejected in our prior decision.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 264 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Kimbrough v. United States
552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Spears v. United States
555 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Daugherty v. California
386 U.S. 271 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Burgett v. Texas
386 U.S. 953 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
311 F. App'x 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-harper-ca7-2009.