Sentencing — Ex Post Facto Clause

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — Ex Post Facto Clause

Where applying the guidelines in effect at sentencing violates the ex post facto clause because it raises the defendant’s imprisonment range, remanding for resentencing is appropriate.

“The government notes two instances in which we retained jurisdiction and issued a limited remand despite finding plain error in the guidelines calculation. See United States v. Maxwell, 724 F.3d 724, 729 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Billian, 600 F.3d 791, 795 (7th Cir. 2010). But in neither instance did we set up the rule urged by the government that only this limited remand is proper when we find plain error in these circumstances. Our normal practice is to presume that the improperly calculated guidelines range influenced the choice of sentence unless the judge said otherwise at sentencing. See, e.g., Goodwin, 717 F.3d at 520–21; Burge, 683 F.3d at 834. We continue to follow that approach here and therefore will direct a remand for resentencing so the district court can sentence Williams based on the guidelines range of 30 to 37 months.”

Vacated and Remanded.

13-1260 U.S. v. Williams

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Simon, J., Per Curiam.