Pleas & Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Ambrose Clayton

Case No.: 15-2553

Officials: RIPPLE, WILLIAMS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Practice Area: Pleas & Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence

Court did not commit reversible error in failing to reduce appellant sentence.

“The court committed no reversible error in step one. At the original sentencing, the parties and the court correctly anticipated that the proposed guideline would reduce Clay‐ ton’s base offense level by two, with a new low end of 108 months. While the district court did not itself state the new range when Clayton moved for a sentencing reduction, it acknowledged, as step one contemplates, that the amendment reduced Clayton’s offense level and that he was eligible for a reduction in sentence. The purpose of step one was anticipated and then achieved. Further, at the original sentencing hearing, the district court explained that it would not reduce Clayton’s sentence any further based on the anticipated new guideline. Any error in not stating the new range explicitly after the amendment actually took effect would have been harmless. See United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900, 912 (7th Cir. 2011).”

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.