10-2503 U.S. v. Johnson

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Crack cocaine

Where the record provides no indication the court considered the defendant’s argument for a lower sentence based on the crack-to-powder cocaine ratio, the sentence must be vacated.

“Unlike in Poetz, the record provides no indication that the district court implicitly considered Johnson’s argument for a reduced ratio. Although Johnson received a below-guideline sentence, we have no basis to conclude that his sentence had anything to do with the crack/powder disparity. To the contrary, it appears that the district court calculated Johnson’s guideline range based on a 100:1 ratio and showed no receptiveness to his argument for a reduced ratio. We have no grounds to conclude that the district court applied a reduced ratio, as opposed to setting a below-guideline sentence based on a 100:1 ratio, or that the district court’s decision to impose a below-guideline sentence was in any way related to the crack/powder disparity. We cannot assume that the district court implicitly considered Johnson’s argument for a reduced ratio merely because it imposed a below-guideline sentence. Rather, we assume only that if the district court had applied a reduced ratio or decided to impose a below-guideline sentence based on the crack/powder disparity, it would have expressly or implicitly indicated as much on the record.”

Vacated and Remanded.

10-2503 U.S. v. Johnson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Manning, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text