Court Opinion

ID: 9476132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:47:52.611475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:08.325865
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur because I believe that we are foreclosed from overruling Becton’s sentence as an abuse of discretion by the district court. I add some additional comments.
*470Although Congress has imposed a “no parolé” condition upon the sentences of defendants convicted of conducting a continuing criminal enterprise and has authorized severe sentences for that offense, twenty-five years is a very long prison sentence for any offender where there is hope for rehabilitation. The record in the proceedings for reduction of Becton’s sentence indicates that responsible persons in the St. Louis community believe that Becton possesses many good qualities and that his rehabilitation is not out of the question. The district court apparently rejected those citizen comments out of hand, and, as is noted in the majority’s opinion, gave no reasons for its adherence to the initial prison sentence though.
The reversal of one count of Becton’s conviction formed a basis for some reduction of his sentence. It is fair to infer that conviction on this count was an important element in the imposition of the initial twenty-five year sentence in addition to the $50,000 fine, reduced by $10,000 when this court was reversed. I believe that the record discloses good reason for some sentence reduction as a matter of the district court's sound discretion. Although we do not reverse upon issuance of our mandate here, the district court might well review the record and reconsider whether Becton, now forty-two years of age, shall be a prisoner until the age of sixty-seven (less his entitlement, if any, to “good time” credit).