USA v. Jimmy Wright
Filing
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge; Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge and Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge. [6814703-1] [6814703] [16-1738]
Case: 16-1738
Document: 36
Filed: 01/27/2017
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Pages: 2
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued January 24, 2017
Decided January 27, 2017
Before
No. 16-‐‑1738
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 14 CR 572
Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-‐‑Appellee,
v.
JIMMY WRIGHT,
Defendant-‐‑Appellant.
Order
Jimmy Wright pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1),
and to engaging in a firearms business by selling weapons (or serving as an intermedi-‐‑
ary) on multiple occasions. 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to
120 months’ imprisonment, the low point of his Guidelines range (120 to 150 months).
Wright contends on appeal that the sentence should have been lower still and that the
district judge failed to discuss his arguments adequately.
Yet the judge asked Wright’s lawyer if she had considered his arguments adequate-‐‑
ly, and counsel gave an unqualified “yes” answer. We have held that such an answer
Case: 16-1738
No. 16-‐‑1738
Document: 36
Filed: 01/27/2017
Pages: 2
Page 2
waives any appellate contention that one or more arguments was addressed inade-‐‑
quately. See United States v. Cruz, 787 F.3d 849, 850 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Gar-‐‑
cia-‐‑Segura, 717 F.3d 566, 569 (7th Cir. 2013). There is a problem, however. The judge
should ask this question at the very end of sentencing, to ensure that counsel has had an
opportunity to consider everything the judge said. Here the judge asked it prematurely,
before her on-‐‑the-‐‑record evaluation of the statutory sentencing factors (18 U.S.C.
§3553(a)). It is conceivable that something said during the judge’s final explanation may
lead counsel to doubt that the court fully understood and addressed the defense’s ar-‐‑
guments. To be prudent, therefore, we will not treat counsel’s statement as a waiver.
This does Wright no good, however, because the judge covered the essentials. Some
of the defense arguments, such as “sentencing entrapment,” are not recognized in this
circuit—and at all events a judge need not rehash contentions rejected earlier. Wright
had presented arguments about entrapment and lack of a connection to interstate com-‐‑
merce before pleading guilty, and the judge rejected them because they lacked eviden-‐‑
tiary support. They had no greater support by the time of sentencing; discussion would
have wasted everyone’s time. Lack of evidentiary support for an argument means that
discussion is unnecessary. United States v. Chapman, 694 F.3d 908, 913–14 (7th Cir. 2012).
Wright’s lawyer also asked for a lower sentence on the ground that his client lacked
prior firearms convictions (though he had plenty of other convictions). Why that would
justify a lower sentence is a mystery, but at all events the district judge stated that she
would consider the fact, which also bore on Wright’s criminal history under the Guide-‐‑
lines (Sentencing Tr. 29). The judge also explained why she thought the informant’s role
in ordering guns from Wright did not imply sentencing manipulation: that if investiga-‐‑
tors had been trying to jack up the sentence, they would have had the informant buy
two more guns, but they didn’t (Sentencing Tr. 20). Defense counsel does not agree with
that evaluation, but his agreement is not required. The statement shows that the judge
understood and considered Wright’s argument.
AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?