Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03290/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03290-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ayinde G. James
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 28, 2010*

Decided July 28, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

AYINDE G. JAMES,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 2:08‐cr‐252

Rudolph T. Randa,

Judge.

O R D E R

Ayinde James pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and

possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug‐trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).  The

probation officer calculated a total guidelines imprisonment range of 87 to 93 months, but

the district court credited James for accepting responsibility, thereby reducing the range to

81 to 87 months.  At sentencing the government recommended a prison term of 87 months,

but the district judge said he would instead accept James’s request to be sentenced at the

low end of the guidelines range.  Nevertheless, when pronouncing sentence, the district

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3290 Document: 26 Filed: 07/28/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3290 Page 2

judge imposed terms of 27 months on the distribution charge and 60 months on the firearm

charge, for a total of 87 months’ imprisonment.  That sentence is also reflected in the written

judgment.  

On appeal James argues that the 87‐month prison sentence cannot be reconciled with

the district judge’s stated intent to sentence him at the low end of the guidelines range, and

the government concedes the point.  In light of the discrepancy between the district court’s

comments and the sentence ultimately imposed, we agree with the parties that it would be

prudent to permit the court to clarify whether the pronounced sentence was deliberate or

based on a misapprehension of the guidelines range.  See United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d

901, 910 (7th Cir. 2009).  Accordingly, we VACATE James’s sentence and REMAND for

resentencing.   

Case: 09-3290 Document: 26 Filed: 07/28/2010 Pages: 2