United States v. Kimbrough

174 F. App'x 798
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 9, 2006
Docket05-4554
StatusUnpublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 174 F. App'x 798 (United States v. Kimbrough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Kimbrough, 174 F. App'x 798 (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Government appeals the district court’s imposition of a sentence outside of the United States Sentencing Guidelines range based, in part, on the district court’s disagreement with the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine violations. We have jurisdiction to review the sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West 2000). We review post- Booker sentences for reasonableness. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005).

Derrick Kimbrough pleaded guilty to distributing fifty or more grams of crack cocaine, distributing cocaine, conspiring to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, and possessing a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime. The sentencing guideline range was 168 to 210 months imprisonment for the drug counts *799 and 60 consecutive months for the firearm count. Based, in part, on the district court’s disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine violations, the district court sentenced Kimbrough to 120 months on each of the three drug violations, to be served concurrently, and sixty months on the firearms charge, to be served consecutively. According to our recent decision in United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir.2006), a sentence that is outside the guidelines range is per se unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses. Because the district court concluded that the crack to powder cocaine disparity warranted a sentence below the applicable sentencing guideline range, we are constrained to vacate Kim-brough’s sentence and to remand the case for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

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

Related

United States v. Lewis
625 F.3d 1224 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Roberson
573 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Illinois, 2008)
United States v. Vega-Castillo
548 F.3d 980 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Russell
537 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Rodríguez
527 F.3d 221 (First Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Hargrove
273 F. App'x 240 (Fourth Circuit, 2008)
Kimbrough v. United States
552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Ricks
506 F.3d 281 (Third Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Brodie
507 F.3d 527 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Brodie, Damien
Seventh Circuit, 2007
United States v. Hinojosa-Echavarria
250 F. App'x 109 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Frazier
249 F. App'x 396 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Rollen
239 F. App'x 451 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 F. App'x 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kimbrough-ca4-2006.