Sentencing — retaliation

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — retaliation

Where the defendant attacked a co-defendant who had testified against him, it was not unreasonable for the district court to impose the statutory maximum, consecutive to the underlying charge.

“That court was well within its discretion in making the retaliation sentence consecutive to the narcotics sentence. The criminal code indicates that ordering a defendant to serve consecutive rather than concurrent sentences which were imposed at different times is the default, and the relevant provision of the Guidelines specifically advises consecutive sentences in this situation. The court appropriately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors in deciding between concurrent or consecutive terms, and its choice of the latter was entirely rational. The retaliatory attack on Alvarez was an offense entirely distinct from Rucker’s narcotics offense; moreover, as the district court pointed out, his calculated decision to commit the attack, just days after he assured the court that he was on the road to reform, revealed Rucker to be a genuine threat to the public.”

Affirmed.

13-2760 U.S. v. Rucker

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kapala, J., Rovner, J.