ILNews

Divided 7th Circuit affirms 'career offender' conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a District Court’s 100-month sentence for a man deemed to be a “career offender.” But the decision was not unanimous.

In United States of America v. Anthony Raupp, No. 11-2215, Anthony Raupp appealed the District Court’s determination that he was a “career offender” after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm, despite his status as a felon.

The 7th Circuit majority held that the single question for review was whether Raupp’s prior conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery could be considered a “crime of violence” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

The majority wrote that an application note accompanying USSG Section 4B1.2 defines an inchoate offense such as conspiracy as a “crime of violence” when the underlying crime is one. “That disposes of this appeal, as far as the Sentencing Commission is concerned,” the 7th Circuit majority wrote.

But in her dissent, Judge Diane Wood wrote that the majority opinion is inconsistent with a long line of cases holding that the text of USSG Section 4B1.2 and the nearly identical language in the Armed Career Criminal Act have the same meaning. In Raupp, Wood wrote that her colleagues concluded that the sentencing guidelines have adopted a significantly broader definition of “crime of violence” than the ACCA.

The majority wrote that Raupp’s “sole contention is that district judges must ignore the first application note to Section 4B1.2, and that contention does not carry the day.”

Application notes in the sentencing guidelines should be treated as an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rule, Wood wrote. She wrote that she would vacate and remand for resentencing.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT