ILNews

Defendant entitled to resentencing under Fair Sentencing Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a northern Indiana man’s convictions of distributing crack cocaine and conspiracy to distribute the drug, but found that he is entitled to resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

Landen Cowart, a former convict working as a confidential informant with the government, arranged to buy cocaine from Ronald Love, aka “Black.” On Sept. 9, 2009, he exchanged $550 in cash with Shelby Deloney, who asked Cowart if he was “with Black.” Ronald Love was in the car that Deloney arrived at the scene in.

Love suspected Cowart was behind the robbery of one of his crack houses, so at another arranged drug buy on Sept. 14, 2009, Love, Deloney and Robert Acklin began beating Cowart. Police heard the commotion over Cowart’s hidden wire and entered the house where the deal went down. Love was indicted in October but sentenced after August 2010.

Love argues that the evidence didn’t support his conspiracy conviction, the trial court improperly declined to give a “buyer-seller” jury instruction, the statement “with Black” was improperly admitted, and his sentence was improperly calculated.

The 7th Circuit found the government’s evidence was detailed enough to show there was an agreement for Love to distribute crack and that he was not entitled to the “buyer-seller” instruction because it contradicts his defense that he wasn’t involved in the Sept. 9 drug sale and that the Sept. 14 beating had nothing to do with drugs.

The judges upheld the admittance of Cowart’s testimony that Deloney asked if he was “with Black.”

But Love is entitled to resentencing because he did not benefit from the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which applies to people who committed crimes before Aug. 3, 2010, and were sentenced after that date. The District Court also incorrectly calculated the guidelines sentence for his drug conviction, but properly imposed a two-level sentencing enhancement for being an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of the conspiracy.

The case, United States of America v. Ronald Love, 11-2547, goes back to the District Court for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT