|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CURTIS A. SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 06-00051—George C. Smith, District Judge.
Argued: December 3, 2008
Decided and Filed: November 23, 2009
Before: BOGGS and CLAY, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge.
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. On three separate occasions within an 18-month period, Simmons was arrested in possession of both crack cocaine and a firearm. He pled guilty to one count of possession of more than five grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of being a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Simmons to 116 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which is within the range supplied by the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. In this appeal, Simmons contends his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. While we hold that the district court’s sentencing was adequate, the Guidelines have since been revised to lower the range for certain crack offenses and Simmons may be eligible for a sentencing reduction. Therefore we affirm and remand.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WASEM PETRUS, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 07-20361-001—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: July 28, 2009
Decided and Filed: November 23, 2009
Before: GILMAN and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; SARGUS, District Judge.
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., District Judge. Defendant-Appellant Wasem Petrus (“Defendant”) challenges the 70-month sentenced imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to a charge of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”). Defendant contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district judge failed to adequately explain her apparent rejection of Defendant’s arguments for leniency, failed to adequately explain how she selected the sentence imposed, and failed to give proper weight to facts and circumstances suggesting a lesser penalty. For the reasons that follow, we hereby AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.