Sentencing — aggravated identity theft

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — aggravated identity theft

Where the district court did not consider Application Note 2(B) to U.S.S.G. 5G1.2 in sentencing a defendant on multiple counts of aggravated identity theft, the sentence must be vacated.

“Dooley’s lawyer in the district court did not remind the judge about the role Note 2(B) plays in choosing between concurrent and consecutive sentences. That makes the judge’s omission understandable. But given §1028A(b)(4), which makes consideration of Note 2(B) essential to the statutory process, plain error has occurred— as the prosecutor has conceded. (Perhaps the district judge privately considered Note 2(B), but he did not say so or address all of its considerations. That’s why we find plain error.)”

Vacated and Remanded.

11-2256 U.S. v. Dooley

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Easterbrook, J.