Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Oct. 01, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 10, 2007 Decided October 1, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER,, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 06-3007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 94 CR
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 10, 2007 Decided October 1, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER,, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 06-3007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 94 CR ..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 10, 2007 Decided October 1, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER,, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 06-3007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 94 CR 787-1 RAYNARD McDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant. Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge. ORDER The defendant was convicted of drug-related offenses and given a long prison sentence. He appealed, and we remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on his contention that the prison had destroyed tapes of a telephone call that would show that the government had promised to seek a sentence reduction for him under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) for providing the government with substantial assistance, and the promise had been broken. On remand, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that no promise had been made. The finding is not clearly erroneous, and the judgment denying the motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion is therefore AFFIRMED.
