# United States Court of App eals F orth eSeve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 A rgued A pri l7, 20 10 Deci ded A pri l30 , 20 10 B efo re D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e
N os . 08 -17 14 , 08-1 71 5, 08 -17 16 , 08- 1717, 08
- 1718 & 08
- 1719 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A ,

P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. THO M AS ROS S, J UA N HERN AN DEZ, JOSE RO D R I G U E Z , FI D E L M A RCO R T E S, M ARLO N RE GALADO , a nd GE R AL D P I T T MAN ,

D efend a nts-A pp ella nts . A pp eal s fro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct of Illino is, E as te rn D ivis ion . N o. 99 CR 46 9 R ob er t W . G et tle m an , Judg e .

O R D E R Thi s di spu te i s no w, r eg r et tabl y, i n i ts thi r d de ca de. I t co nc erns a hug e dr ug d ist rib u tio n co n sp ira c y in vo lvin g m em b er s o f th e M an iac L at inD isc ip les ga n g t o p ed d le m ar ij u an a, c oc ain e, an d cr ac k in C h ica go . T h e g an g d ru g d ea lin g a c tiv itie s t oo k p lac e in th e 19 90 ' s. S ev en te eng an gmem be r s wer e i ndi ct ed i n May o f2 00 0 o n 5 0 co unt s al l eg i ng drug and fi re ar m o ffenses . Ten were co nvi cted ( othe rs pl ed gui l ty) aftera 2001 j ury tr i al 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION To be c ited only

in acc ordanc e with Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N os. 08
- 1714, 08
- 1715 , etal
. Page 2

that l ast ed sev er alm onths. S entencing pro ceedi ngs were st rung o ut wh i l e the par ti es disputed the appli cati on o fthe gui del i nes, wh i ch atthatti m e were m andator y. Ult i m ate l y, n in e o f te n d efe n d an ts co n vic te d in t h e t ria l ap p ea led , an d w e a ffirm ed th eir co n vic tio n s in 20 05 . U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e di na , 430 F.3d 86 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). B ec au se by th en , ho w ev er , U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 5 4 3 U. S
. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , h a d r e d u c e d th e g u i d e l i n e s t o a d v i s o r y s t a t u s , we or dered thatthe case as to thr ee defe nd ants be r etur ned to the di str i ct c ourtf or r e- se nt en cing . Thr ee o th erde fen dan ts a l so wonful lr e- se nt en cingpr o ce eding s f o l l o wi ng l i m i te d r emands pur su an t to the pr o ce dur e we o ut l i ne d i n U nited Sta tes v . Palad i no , 40 1 F .3d 47 1 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). The si x defe nd ants w er e r e- sente nced i n 200 8. A nd now they ar e ba ck here i n 201 0 chal l engi ng the new sentence s they r ecei ved. The si x defe nd ants and thei r ol d and new sente nces ar e: De fen dan t Or i g i na lS en te nc e S en te nc e Aft erRe m an d Tho m as Ro ss Li fe 36 0 m o nths J ua n Herna nde z 36 0 m o nths 36 0 m o nths J o se Ro dr i g ue z 29 2 m o nths 23 5 m o nths F i del m arCo r te s 23 5 m o nths 20 0 m o nths M ar l o n Re g al ado 32 4 m o nths 24 0 m o nths Ger al d Pi tt m an Li fe 36 0 m o nths The de fen dan ts , i n a j o i ntb r i ef , a nd Her na nde z, i n a n indi vi dualb r i ef , r ai se numer o us i ss ue s to c o nt es t th ei r ne w se nt en ce s. Al m o sta l lo fthe c l ai m s ( th i ng s l i k e dr ugty pe an d d ru g q u an tit y) a re off th e t ab le a t t h is p oin t— a c ou p le w er e w aiv ed , oth er s la c k m er it. H ow ever, one issue d eserve s our atte nt ion. Th e d efend an ts argu e tha t the district cou rt f ai l ed to co nsi der whether the s entencing di spari ty between cr ack and pow der c oca i ne was w arran ted i n th eir case s in l ight of K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 552 U . S. 85 (2007). W hetherthe dist ri ct c ourtf ol l owed the properse ntenci ng pro cedures i s a questi on of law su bj ec t t o d e n ov o re vie w . U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ndoz a , 510 F.3d 74 9, 75 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). W e m ust e nsure that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not co m m i t pr oce du ra ler ro r by, f orexam ple , f ai l i ngt o pr o per l y c al cul at e th e g ui del i ne s r an g e o r b yf ai l i ngt o c o ns i derthe s en te nc i ng fac to rs n ot ed in 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a). U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pape, 2010 W L 14885 21, at * 2 (7th C ir. A pr. 15 , 20 10) ( ci ti ng G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7)). W h ile th e d ist ric t c ou rtisN os. 08
- 1714, 08
- 1715 , etal
. Page 3

The go vern ment argu es that Kimbrough do es not ap pl y to H er nandez becaus e he was 1 senten cedasa ca reer o ffend er, rely in gon United S tates v . Millbrook , 5 53F . 3d1 05 7 (7thC ir. 2 00 9)
. Ho wev er, the h o ld in gin Millbrook was o verr uled byUnited States v. Corn er, 59 8 F . 3d4 11 ( 7th C ir. 20 10 ). not re quir ed to address ev er y c l ai m a defe nd ant m ake s, i t m ust co nsi der a rgum ents that ar e s tr on g e n ou gh to m er it d isc u ss ion . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l egas -M i r anda , 57 9 F . 3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2009). Kim b r ough w as d ec id ed a few m on th s b efo re th e d efe n d an ts w er e re -se n te n c ed
. A lthou gh the d efend an ts fi led a j oint m em oran d um conc ernin g the case, the d istri ct cou rt neverdi re ctl y a dd re sse d i t duri ng the r e- sente nci ng pro ceedi ngs. M or eov er, the dist ri ct j u d g e ma d e c o mme n t s th a ts u g g e s th e fe l tc o n s t r a i n e d b y th e c r a c k/p o wd e r d i s p a r i t y . H e sa id h e w as “b ou n d by th e la w as it st an d s n ow ” w h ile re -se n te n c in g R os s a n d “t h e la w is the l aw ” whil e r e- sente nci ng Pi ttm an. In re - sente nci ng H er nand ez, the dist ri ct j ud ge spoke as i fhe ha rbo r ed th e ve r y c o nc ern Kim b r ough so ug htt o a ddr es s: “ [ Y] o u t al kabo utthe dispar i ty ofcr ack and coke , and Iag re e that there i s, Ithi nk tha t s om ethi ng sho uld be do ne . . . . Iho pe th atthe na ti o n wak es up to tha t. Butr i g htno w the l aw i s th e l aw, a nd I ’ m enf or ci ng i t the way i t i s wri tte n, and that’ s a sa d decis i on Ihave to m ake
. ” C o n s e q u e n t l y, w e ’ r e n o ts u r e th e j u d g e a p p r e c i a t e d th e w i g g l e r o o m Kim b r ough provi des, and w e be l i eve a re m and i s warr anted o n thi s l i m i ted i ssue. Therefor e, we VA CA TE the sente nces and RE M A N D to the di str i ct c ourtf orfurther p roceed ings in li gh t of Kim b r ough
. W e do not, however, bel i eve thata full

-bl own do- ove r 1 of th e p ro c ee d in gs , w ith d efe n d an ts p h ys ica lly p ro d u c ed in C h ica go , i s n ec es sa ry to fairly w ra p up thi s ca se.