Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2321 U.S. v. Hunt

By: dmc-admin//December 3, 2001//

00-2321 U.S. v. Hunt

By: dmc-admin//December 3, 2001//

Listen to this article

“In sentencing Hunt, the district court stated that Hunt was ‘only being charged with his actual participation in the criminal offense for which he has been convicted’ and that ‘none of the conspiracy activities are being charged to [him] in the sentencing.’ However, the district court then proceeded to identify the amount of money that Hunt laundered and counted in the drug conspiracy and converted it into its ‘rough[ ] equivalent’ in cocaine, as if Hunt had actually sold drugs, and applied the drug trafficking guideline, section 2D1.1. This was plain error.

“If the district court was accurate in stating that Hunt was being sentenced only for his activity, and not that of the conspiracy (an additional error), then it could not take activity that Hunt did do (launder and count money) and convert it into activity he did not do (sell drugs). Cf. Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991); United States v. Cones, 195 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 1999). Hunt laundered and counted money, and accounting only for his activity in calculating a sentence, the district court should have applied the money laundering guidelines, sections 2S1.1 and 2S1.2, not the drug trafficking guideline.”

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Stiehl, J., Williams, J.


Should additional funding and resources be given to the Secret Service?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests