Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of United States v. Ulice Askew, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the impact of United States v. Booker on sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The appellate court ordered a limited remand to determine whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence if the guidelines had been advisory rather than mandatory. In its response, the district court expressed uncertainty about the original sentence and indicated a desire to resentence Askew, leading the appellate court to find plain error. Despite the government's opposition, arguing the judge's current feelings were irrelevant, the appellate court concluded that the district judge's willingness to reconsider the sentence demonstrated an error at the time of the original sentencing. Consequently, the court vacated Askew's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The decision was determined to be worthy of publication, and Judge Ripple recused himself from further proceedings in this case.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review and Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court vacated the original sentence and remanded the case for resentencing based on the district court's indication of potential error.
Reasoning: Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated Askew's original sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.
Judicial Recusalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Ripple recused himself from further proceedings after initially being on the panel.
Reasoning: Judge Ripple, originally on the panel, recused himself from further proceedings in this case.
Plain Error in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the district judge's expression of uncertainty and desire to resentence indicated plain error in the original sentencing.
Reasoning: The appellate court disagreed with the government’s interpretation, clarifying that the district judge’s response suggested a willingness to impose a different sentence had she known the guidelines were advisory.
Sentencing Under Advisory Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court considered whether the district court would have imposed a different sentence if the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory.
Reasoning: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a limited remand in the case of United States v. Ulice Askew to assess whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence if the United States Sentencing Guidelines had been advisory at the time of sentencing, referencing United States v. Booker.