Sentencing — Ex Post Facto Clause

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — Ex Post Facto Clause

“In sum, Hunter entered a blind plea of guilty and although he unilaterally stated that he was preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress Title III wire-tap materials, the government did not acquiesce to the entering of a conditional guilty plea. Nor did the district court approve such a plea. Accordingly, Hunter cannot now appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Next, Adams’s appeal fails because the district court did not commit clear error in holding him responsible for the drugs sales made by other street-level sellers working alongside Adams. Conversely, Gill and Bostic both succeed in their Ex Post Facto challenges to the two-level stash house enhancements they received, and we remand their cases for the limited purpose of resentencing them based on the corrected guideline range. Bostic, though, has not established plain error in his current claim that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Bostic’s claim that the district court erred in not identifying the specific instances of violence for which it found him responsible also fails because the court considered the § 3553 factors sufficiently for our review.”

Dismissed in part, Affirmed in part, and Reversed and Remanded in part.

12-2125, 12-2379, 12-2759 & 12-2975 U.S. v. Adams

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Manion, J.