Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Deangelo Anderson, 16-3112 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Number: 16-3112 Visitors: 57
Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: May 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 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Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 Argued November 7, 2017 Decided May 16, 2018 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 16-3112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Court Plaintiff-Appellee, for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. v. No. 2:14-cr-00186-LA-2 DEANGELO AN
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 Argued November 7, 2017 Decided May 16, 2018 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 16‐3112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Court Plaintiff‐Appellee, for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. v. No. 2:14‐cr‐00186‐LA‐2 DEANGELO ANDERSON, Lynn Adelman, Defendant‐Appellant. Judge. O R D E R Deangelo Anderson filed an appeal from his conviction and sentence, and on February 2, 2018 we upheld his conviction but ordered a limited remand as to his sentence so that the district court could determine whether it would have imposed the same sentence knowing that it could consider the mandatory sentence in light of Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017). The district court responded that it would have imposed the same sentence, and we provided the parties an opportunity to respond. On May 9, 2018, the parties filed a joint statement agreeing that Anderson’s argument regarding Dean has been resolved and stating that, because we had already rejected Anderson’s other arguments, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. We agree. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer