Opinion ID: 3001741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kenneth Green

Text: Green argues that his prison sentence for the drug count is substantively unreasonable. But we need not address that argument because Green is entitled to a remand for resentencing in light of Kimbrough. Green made the 100:1 ratio argument to the district court and the court took into account the lower guidelines range that would apply after the then‐proposed amendment to § 2D1.1 took effect, but it is impossible to tell whether the court would have in its discretion imposed a different sentence after Kimbrough. Therefore, we must vacate Green’s sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Bush, 523 F.3d 727, 728 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Padilla, No. 06‐4370, 2008 WL 833994, at  (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2008). We note the government’s argument that Green waived this claim by not raising it. See United States v. Thomas, No. 05‐4222, 2008 WL 755297, at  (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2008). It is unfortunate that Green’s counsel did not mention Kimbrough when he filed the appeal in November 2007, five months after the Supreme Court granted certiorari and one month after it heard arguments in the case. Inexplicably, counsel did not discuss the case after the government noted it in its brief filed in February 2008, almost two months after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kimbrough. Nevertheless, at oral argument Green’s counsel pointed us to a reference to the 100:1 ratio that he had included in his brief and at that point articulated an argument that his client was entitled to a remand for resentencing in light of Kimbrough. That is enough, but just barely, to raise the issue. Cf. Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691‐92 (7th Cir. 2008) (argument not waived when court can “identify an articulable basis for error” in the brief).