By: Derek Hawkins//August 1, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Deshaun Brown aka Squeak, et al.
Case No.: 15-2933; 16-1496; 16-3149
Officials: BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence and Sentencing Guidelines
Brown appeals his conviction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict on the conspiracy charge. He also argues that the district court erred in denying two of his requested jury instructions. Hawthorne appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on the government’s failure to timely disclose information regarding its witness, Charles Vaughn. Pagan appeals his sentence, arguing that the court miscalculated his criminal history level. We address each argument in turn.
Hawthorne’s only argument on appeal is that the district court erred in denying his motion. Although the prosecutors assigned to this trial did not know of the interview before trial, the government concedes that the evidence was suppressed because it was in the government’s collective knowledge. The district court did not decide whether the evidence was favorable to Hawthorne and instead focused its analysis on materiality. Because we agree with the district court’s conclusion on that issue, we can assume, without deciding, that evidence of a government witness’s involvement in a prior murder would have been favorable to Hawthorne for impeachment purposes.
Pagan’s only argument on appeal is that the district court miscalculated his criminal history score and, therefore, applied the wrong Guidelines range. We conclude that the district court erred in assessing Pagan five criminal history points based on the incorrect information in the PSR. We have consistently held that “[a] district court’s adoption of erroneous information in a PSR that results in an incorrect Guidelines range, however correct such information appears, constitutes plain error on review.” United States v. Jenkins, 772 F.3d 1092, 1098 (7th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases). Accordingly, we find that the court committed plain error here.
Affirmed in part. Vacated and Remanded in part