ILNews

Federal court addresses resentencing issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal appellate court’s general remand for resentencing doesn’t necessarily mean a defendant will receive a lesser penalty or be able to introduce new arguments, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

Issuing a 23-page opinion in United States of America v. Marlyn J. Barnes and Melvin B. Taylor, Nos. 11-1261, 11-1602, the federal Circuit panel tackled an issue that few courts have yet addressed since a key ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States came down in March.

In this case from the Northern District of Indiana, the appellate court examined a case that was before it for a second time after a panel in 2010 remanded for resentencing. The government in 2006 had indicted and charged Marlyn Barnes, Melvin Taylor and others with conspiring to possess and distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Barnes and Taylor were also charged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The two defendants in this case were the only two who proceeded to trial, and in separate trials, a jury convicted them on both counts. Barnes received a 292-month sentence with enhancements while Taylor received a 188-month sentence, and both appealed.

On first appeal, the 7th Circuit vacated those sentences and remanded because the judges found inconsistent facts that didn’t justify the sentences, and that the penalties appeared to be disparate when compared to the other co-conspirators.

At resentencing, Judge Theresa Springmann waived several new arguments that Barnes tried to raise and found he should have raised them during his first appeal. She factored in evidence that had been submitted post-trial and again sentenced him to 292 months. For Taylor, the judge resentenced him to 188 months as before after dismissing as waived the new arguments he tried to raise.

Both appealed, arguing that they were entitled to the District Court’s consideration of any and all arguments they might raise on resentencing. Specifically, they argued the SCOTUS ruling from March in Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011), required this because any appellate court’s general remand erases the original sentencing proceeding and any issues of waiver.

The 7th Circuit disagreed, and found the District judge’s revised sentences remained within the guidelines and are proper.

“We conclude that, upon a general remand for re-sentencing, a district court may permit new arguments and evidence as it deems necessary to re-fashion its sentence,” Judge Joel Flaum wrote for a panel that included Judges Michael Kanne and David Hamilton. “General remand does not, however, entitle the defendants to present new arguments and evidence beyond that pertinent to the issues raised on appeal. Allowing a district court to freely balance already and properly raised arguments to preserve or revise its sentencing objectives does not equate to carte blanche for defendants to raise new arguments unrelated to the issues raised on appeal.”

The judges noted that the SCOTUS hasn’t yet defined the scope of its Pepper holding and that no court has concluded Pepper operates to abolish waiver in the context of resentencing. They didn’t address the question of whether a District court must consider post-sentencing rehabilitation on a general remand, and left that for another day.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT