## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09
- 3776 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES J. B R OWN , S R ., D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- CR-58

—L ynnA delm an, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 16, 2010

Befo re K ANN E , W I L L I A MS, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu it Judg e . J am es J
. Bro w n, S r. pl ed gui l ty to possess in g c ra ck coca i ne with the intent to dist ribute i t. H e qual i fi ed as a ca re er o ffender und er th e Uni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ngGu i de l i ne s , a nd h e p o i nt ed o uti n h i s s en ten cingmem o r an dum tha t th e g ui del i ne ra nge forpow der c oca i ne o ffenders w as l owe r th an that f o r c r ac kc o ca i ne o ffen der s l i k e hi m . At the t i m e, o ur pr ec ede ntdi ct at ed th ata s en te nc i ngj udg e was b o und2 N o. 09
- 3776 by the c ra ck/pow der di sp ar i ty re fl ecte d i n the car eer offender gui del i ne, U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1. W e o ver ruled that pr ec ede nti n U n i t e d Sta tes v. C o rner, 59 8 F
. 3d 411 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) , wh i c h we d e c i d e d a ft e r B r o wn w as sente nced. A l though Bro w n re cei ved a sente nce th at w as on e m on th les s t h an th e low en d of th e a d visory g u id eli ne range for pow d er cocaine career offen d er s, w e d o n otkn ow h ow th e d ist ric t c ou rtw ou ld have sente nced Brown had i t know n i t co uld di sag re e w i th the cr ack/pow der di spari ty i nherenti n the car eer offen d er guid eli ne . Th erefore, i n li gh t of Co rner, we vacat e Bro w n’s se ntence and rem and fo r re sente nci ng.

I . B AC KGR OUND W hi l e co nduc tings ur ve i l l an ce ne ara n apar tment co m pl ex in Fi tc hb ur g, W i sc o ns i n, a n o ffi ce r s aw a dr ug de a l a nd r a di o e d the l i c e ns e p l a t e n umb e r s a nd de s c r i pti o ns o fthe v eh i cl es i nv o l ve d
. O ffi ce r s st o pped th e ve hi cl e J ames J
. B row n, S r . was dr i ving . Br o wn go t o ut an d r an, b uta n o ffi ce r c augh t hi m a s ho r t ti m e l at era nd f ound a cl earpl ast i c ba g c ontaini ng 18
. 18 g ram s o fcr ack co ca i ne ne arby
. Br o wn adm it te d i n a s ta te m en t th athe r a n f r o m th e o ffi c e r b e c a u s e h e h a d c r a c k c o c a i ne a nd that he had thr own the pla sti c ba g c on ta ini ng cr ack c o c a i n e w h i l e th e p o l i c e c h a s e d h i m. B ro w n p led gu ilt y t o kn ow in gly an d int en tio n ally posse ssing , with the i ntent to dist ribute, m or e than fi ve gram s of coca ine bas e in viol ation of 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(a)( 1). Th e P r ese nt e nc e I nv e s t i g a t i o n Re po r t( “ PS R” ) a ffi xe d a base o ffense l eve l o f 24 i n l i ght of the 1 8. 18 gr am s o fcr ackN o. 09
- 3776 3

c oc ain e fo u n d atth e s c en e. See U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1 .1 . B row n’s pri orco nv icti ons m ade hi m a car eero ffender und er the guidel i nes, and that sta tu s ra ised hi s o ffense l eve l to 37
. See U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1. A thr ee- lev el reducti on f oraccep t a nc e o fr e s po ns ib i l i t y r e s ul t e d in a fi na l o ffe ns e l e v el of34 , and h is c rim i nal hi sto ryas a car eero ffender w as VI
. Th e resul ti ng advi sor y guidel i ne r ange w as 262 to 327 m ont hs
. Brow n also faced a statu t o r y m an d atory m in im u m of 12 0 m o n t h s ’ im p ris on m en t. See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 841(b). Thr o ug h c o uns el, Br o wn fil ed a se nt en cingmem o r an d u m be for e h is s en te n c in g h ea rin g. H e p oin te d ou t in the m em or andu m t h at al though hi s guidel i ne r ange w as 262- 327 m onths, hi s r ange w oul d have be en 15 1- 188 m onths’ i m priso nm ent had hi s o ffense i nvol ved pow der c o c a i n e . O n N o v e mb e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti mp osed a sente nc e of 150 m o n th s’ i m p risonm en t, 8 years o fs u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , a n d a $ 1 0 0 a s s e s s me n t . B r o wn appeal s hi s s entence .
II. A N A L Y S IS A t the ti m e Bro w n w as sente nced, the dist ri ct cour t was bo und b y o urde ci si o n in U ni t e d S t at e s v. We l t on, 583 F
. 3d 49 4 ( 7th Ci r. 2 009). W e he l d i n We l t on th ata s en tenci ng co urt coul d not di sag re e with the cr ack/pow der dispar i ty re flec ted i n the car eero ffender gui del i ne, U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1.1 , b e c a us e a statu te, 28 U
. S. C
. § 994(h), r equi r ed th e S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n t o s etg ui d el i ne ra n ge s fo r c ar ee r offe n d er s a t o r n ea r th e s ta tu to ry m ax imum s e n t e n c e s , a n d th e ma x i mu m s e n t e n c e s i n 2 1 U
. S
. C.4 N o. 09
- 3776 § 841 con tained a crack/p ow d er disp a rity. W e later overrul e d We l t on i n U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, 5 9 8 F
. 3d 411 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( enb anc), ho l di ngtha t a se nt en cing j udg e co ul d c o ns i d er pol i cydi sa g r ee m en ts wi ththe cra ck/pow der d isp ar i ty w hen i t s entence d a per son w i th ca re ero ffender sta tus. The questi on in thi s a pp eali s whet h er o ur deci si on i n C o rnerr e qu i r e s a r e man d in thi s c a s e . As a n i ni ti al m at te r , Br o wn pr es e r v e d h i s a r g u me n t th att he crac k/p ow d er disp a rity refl ecte d i n U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1.1 af

fecte d his se ntence by ass er ti ng i n h is s entencing m em or an dum tha t ha d hi s ca se i nvolv ed po wder c o ca i ne in st ea d of cr ac k c oc ain e, h is gu id elin e ra n ge w ou ld h av e b ee n low er . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 58 4 F
. 3d 731, 740 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( sta ti ng tha t defendant pres er ved chal l enge to senten c ing di spari ty by ra i si ng chal l enge in his obj ection s to the p resen ten cing rep ort). The go ver nm ent m ai ntai ns thatdespi te our deci si on i n C o rner, B ro w n ’s s en te n c e s h ou ld be affirm ed . I t ar gues that Brown ’ s 1 51- m ont h sent ence w as re aso n ab l e a n d e mph a s i z e s th a t h i s s e n t e n c e wa s o ne m o nth b el ow the l o w end o fthe a dvi so r y g ui del i ne ra ng e f o r po wder c o ca i ne c ar ee r o ffen der s. The g o ve r nm ent a l so poi nts t o the di str i ct c ourt ’ s th or ough di scussi on a t the se ntenci ng hea ring and m ai ntai ns that Brown f ai l ed to sho w thatthe cour t’ s inabi l i ty to c on sid er th e c ra c k/ p ow d er d isp ar ity in U .S.S.G . § 4B 1.1 affecte d i ts choi ce o fse ntence. T h e p r o b l e m wi th th i s a r g u me n t, h o we v e r, i s th a twe h a v e n o wa y o fkn o wi n gh o w th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tmi g htN o. 09
- 3776 5 have sente nced Brown had i t know n i t co uld di sag re e w i th the cr ack/pow der di spari ty i nherenti n the car eer offender guid elin e. The co urse we have t ake n i n si m i l ar sit u at ion s g u id es u s h er e. A fte r th e Su p re m e C ou rth eld i n U nited S ta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U.S
. 22 0 ( 2005 ) , that th e se nt en cingg ui del i ne s wer e adv i so r y a nd not m an dator y, w e re m anded sente nci ng appeal s to the d istr i ct co ur t unl es s we wer e co nfi den t th at th e s en te nc i ng j ud ge w oul d n ot h ave gi ven the defendant a l i ghter se n te n c e h ad it kn ow n th e g u id elin es w er e on ly a d viso ry . Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. P a l adi no , 40 1 F
. 3d 471, 48 1- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. W e a dopted the s am e a pp ro ach after th e S upr eme Cou rt r ul ed i n K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes, 55 2 U .S. 85 (20 07 ), th at a se n te n c in g jud ge co u ld d isa gree w i th the cr ack/pow der di spari ty i n the gui del i ne s f o r po l i cyr ea so ns , o ve r r ul i ngo urpr ec ed en t t o the c on tr ar y. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 52 0 F
. 3d 746, 74 7- 48 ( 7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. White, 5 1 9 F
. 3 d 3 42, 34 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. I n both si tuati ons, we concl ud ed that when we h ad no wayo fkno wi ngho w the s en te nc i ng j ud ge m i ght ha ve s entence d the defendant i n l i ght o f the S up re m e Cour t deci si ons , a rem and w as necessary so th at th e sen ten cing ju d g e cou ld m ake th at d eterm i na ti o n. T ha t is th e situat ion he re too. T he govern m en t is corre ct that the dist ri ct c ourtga ve a thor ough e xplanat i on o fthe rea so ns f o r c ho o singthe s en te nc e i t di d. The dist ri ct c ourtdi scusse d Brow n’s r eco rd and the convictio n s t h at l e d t o h is c ar ee r offe n d er st at u s. It ac kn ow led ge d th at B ro w n ’s c u rre n t o ffen se w as se riou s , b u t it al so note d that the l onge st sente nce he had rec ei ved to6 N o. 09
- 3776 d at e was o nl y 24 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t. The cou rt al so disc ussed Bro w n’s di ffi cul t chi l dh oo d, w here a n eg lec tfu l, ab u siv e m ot h er o f t e n le ft B ro w n an d h is sibl i ngs t o fend fo r them sel ves. The di str i ct c ourtal so re c og n ize d th at B ro w n h ad five ch ild re n an d th at h is fi an cé e des cr ibe d hi m as a g o o d per so n an d caring f ath er w h o becam e invol ved i n drugs to m ake m oney . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtals o n ot ed th at B ro w n w as d oin g w e ll i n tr eat m en t a nd had m ade an e ff or t t o be invol ved w i th hi s o therchild re n. A fterta ki ng the se and other consi derat i ons i nto acco unt, the dist ri ct c ourti m posed a s entence o f15 0 m onths. B ut the d istri ct c ou rt i m p osed the 15 0-m ont h term not knowing that i t coul d di sag re e w i th th e 2 62- 327 m ont h gu ideline rang e for crac k cocain e career offen der s, a nd w e do no t kno w ho w i t m i g htha ve s en te n c e d B r o w n h ad it kn ow n it co u ld se n te n c e h im re l ative to a di ffer ent r ange. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not ad dress the cra ck/pow der di spari ty Brown had ra i sed i n h i s m emor an dum , whi chma d e s en se i n l i g hto fo ur prec ed ent a t the ti m e. I t a l so m ade no sta tem ent s ugges ti ng tha t i t would have i m posed the sam e s entence i fi t had the autho ri ty to disa gr ee w i th the di sparity re fl ecte d i n § 4 B1. 1. The bur d en i s o n the gov er nm ent t o sh ow th at a re m an d is u n w ar ra n te d , s e eU nited Sta t e s v. White, 582 F.3d 78 7, 79 9 ( 7 t h C i r. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l s on , 45 0 F
. 3d 655, 68 3 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 6) , and w e do not fi nd thatburden s ati sfi ed her e. W e there f or e v acat e Br o wn’ s se nt en ce . Be cau se he pr es er ve d hi s ar g um en t be f o r e th e di st r i ctc o ur t, Br o w n re ce i ve s a ful l r es en te n c in g a n d n ota lim ite d rem an d
. Se eJohns on , 58 4 F.3d at 74 0; O l s on , 45 0 F
. 3d at 683.N o. 09
- 3776 7 I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e V ACATE Br o wn’ s sent e nc e a nd R EMA ND hi s ca se to the di str i ct c ourt .

8- 16- 10