By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 9, 2015//
U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Criminal
Sentencing – Proper factors
It was not plain error for the court to take into consideration statements from an individual or group that was not a named victim of the charged offense.
“In arriving at an appropriate sentence, a sentencing judge necessarily must consider not only the offense of conviction but the defendant’s broader criminal record and history. See § 3553(a)(1) & (2); United States v. Hankton, 432 F.3d 779, 789-90 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Hardamon, 188 F.3d 843, 849-50 (7th Cir. 1999)). Uncharged criminal acts (and the injuries inflicted upon the victims of those acts) have a bearing on whether the offense of conviction was an aberration or part of a larger pattern of criminal behavior, the likelihood of the defendant re-offending, and the need for specific deterrence. See, e.g., United States v. Laraneta, 700 F.3d 983, 987 (7th Cir. 2012). The Criminal Code makes clear that ‘[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense, which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence,’ 18 U.S.C. § 3661, and the Sentencing Guidelines likewise provide that the court has broad authority to consider any information about the defendant unless specifically proscribed by law, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4. See also United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446-47, 92 S. Ct. 589, 591 (1972). Consequently, the district court was not precluded from taking into consideration statements from victims of criminal acts other than those with which the defendant has been charged and convicted.”
Affirmed.
13-3308 U.S. v. Salutric
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Rovner, J.