10-1304 U.S. v. Taylor

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Consecutive sentences

Where the district failed to recognize it had discretion to impose sentences concurrently or consecutively, a limited remand is appropriate.

“Although the supervised release policy statements were advisory well before the sentencing guidelines themselves were made advisory in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 267, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005), the district court’s error here is 1 analogous to a case in which the district court failed to appreciate the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines. In cases of that kind and in which the defendant did not raise the issue at sentencing, the remedy has been a limited remand for the district court to determine whether it would have imposed the same sentence knowing that the guidelines are not mandatory. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484-85 (7th Cir. 2005); Santiago, 428 F.3d at 705-06.”

Remanded.

10-1304 U.S. v. Taylor

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, J., Cudahy, J.

Full Text