United States v. Longstreet

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Longstreet

359 F. App'x 673

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

DocketNos. 07-1657, 07-2685

StatusPublished

This text of 359 F. App'x 673 (United States v. Longstreet) 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. Longstreet, 359 F. App'x 673 (7th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

On June 8, 2009, we ordered these cases be returned to the district court on limited remand to query whether the district court wanted to resentence Ray Longstreet and Michael Ervin in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). On December 22, 2009, the district court communicated its desire to resentence the defendants. Accordingly, we Vacate Ray Longstreet’s and Michael Ervin’s sentences and Remand their cases to the district court for resentencing.

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

ORDER

On June 8, 2009, we ordered these cases be returned to the district court on limited remand to query whether the district court wanted to resentence Ray Longstreet and Michael Ervin in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). On December 22, 2009, the district court communicated its desire to resentence the defendants. Accordingly, we Vacate Ray Longstreet’s and Michael Ervin’s sentences and Remand their cases to the district court for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 F. App'x 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-longstreet-ca7-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack