10-2303 U.S. v. Duncan

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 22, 2011//

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Crack cocaine

That the government did not oppose a co-defendant’s motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) does not entitle the defendant to a reduction.

“As for the issue of a codefendant’s successful § 3582(c)(2) motion, the distinction here is that the government did, in fact, oppose Mr. Duncan’s motion. It is not for this Court to deduce the rationale for the government’s inconsistent strategy—it is wholly irrelevant to the district court’s disposition of Mr. Duncan’s motion. Mr. Duncan participated in a drug conspiracy that sold at least 4.5 kilograms of crack each month. The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that he was responsible for that amount over the course of his two-plus year participation in the conspiracy.”

Affirmed.

10-2303 U.S. v. Duncan

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Andersen, J., Murphy, J.

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event