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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT