David Conrad v. USA

David Conrad v. USA

Petitioner - Appellant:	DAVID CONRAD
Respondent - Appellee:	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case Number:	14-3216
Filed:	October 9, 2014
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner Petition-Vacate Sentence

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
March 4, 2016	Conrad v. United States
May 24, 2016	David Conrad v. USA
May 24, 2016	David Conrad v. USA

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 24, 2016	Filing 702764898 ORDER: The opinion of this court issued on March 4, 2016, is amended by replacing one paragraph with a new paragraph. The original paragraph on pages 4 and 5 was: It s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible sentences, because the judge doesn t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however effectuated, procedural seems a misuse of the word. But although the increase in the guidelines range of which the defendant complains both seems substantive and postdated his crime, we don t think he s entitled to be resentenced. The replacement paragraph is: It s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible sentences, because the judge doesn t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however effectuated, procedural might seem a misuse of the word. But the Supreme Court has reserved the label substantive (meaning therefore retroactive) for rules that change the sentence that a judge can lawfully impose. See Schriro v. Summerlin, supra, 542 U.S. at 352. A change in the guidelines affects the sentence that a judge is likely to impose but does not alter the range of sentences that he can lawfully impose. So although the increase in the guidelines range of which the defendant complains in this case not only postdated his crime but also could have had a significant effect on his sentence, he is not entitled to be resentenced. [6752835-1] [6752835] [14-3216]
March 4, 2016	Filing 702713910 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Posner. AFFIRMED. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge; Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6733455-1] [6733455] [14-3216]

Date Filed

Document Text

May 24, 2016

Filing 702764898 ORDER: The opinion of this court issued on March 4, 2016, is amended by replacing one paragraph with a new paragraph. The original paragraph on pages 4 and 5 was: It s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible sentences, because the judge doesn t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however effectuated, procedural seems a misuse of the word. But although the increase in the guidelines range of which the defendant complains both seems substantive and postdated his crime, we don t think he s entitled to be resentenced. The replacement paragraph is: It s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible sentences, because the judge doesn t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however effectuated, procedural might seem a misuse of the word. But the Supreme Court has reserved the label substantive (meaning therefore retroactive) for rules that change the sentence that a judge can lawfully impose. See Schriro v. Summerlin, supra, 542 U.S. at 352. A change in the guidelines affects the sentence that a judge is likely to impose but does not alter the range of sentences that he can lawfully impose. So although the increase in the guidelines range of which the defendant complains in this case not only postdated his crime but also could have had a significant effect on his sentence, he is not entitled to be resentenced. [6752835-1] [6752835] [14-3216]

March 4, 2016

Filing 702713910 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Posner. AFFIRMED. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge; Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6733455-1] [6733455] [14-3216]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: David Conrad v. USA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner - appellant: DAVID CONRAD
Represented By:	Beau B. Brindley
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent - appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Represented By:	Matthew M. Getter
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?