Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from the district court’s denial of his motion for sentence reduction in which defendant argued that the anti-stacking amendment contained in the First Step Act constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his 40-year sentence, 30 years of which came from stacked convictions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, following prior precedent in which the court held that the First Step Act’s anti-stacking amendment did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release and that a policy statement by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to the contrary exceeded the commission’s statutory authority. (RIPPLE, separately concurring and HAMILTON, dissenting)

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obtain and distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant argued for the first time that two conditions of his supervised release were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that defendant waived the objections at sentencing. (EASTERBROOK and KIRSCH. concurring)

Defendant challenged his indictment and conviction under Section 5861(d) of the National Firearm Act, which criminalizes receipt or possession of certain unregistered firearms, alleging that the statute unconstitutionally burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that binding precedent foreclosed defendant’s argument. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and LEE, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his conviction and sentence related to wire fraud charges arising out of thefts from a storage unit. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, and that his restitution order violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could rationally conclude that defendant caused interstate wire transfers, that there was no support for defendant's contention that the prosecutor's remarks deprived him of a fair trial, and that the Sixth Amendment did not apply because restitution is a civil remedy. (BRENNAN and KOLAR, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of distributing heroin, fentanyl, and an analogue of fentanyl. During sentencing, the district court judge observed that defendant had nine other felony convictions and had not shown any sign of reform and sentenced defendant to 150 months in prison. Defendant argued on appeal that this was plain error because one of the nine convictions was not valid. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that under the plain error analysis defendant could not establish prejudice. (SYKES and PRYOR, concurring)