Judge Bennett says that 80 percent of the mandatory minimum sentences he imposes on drug defendants are unjust because the laws governing these sentencing schemes are inflexible, not allowing the judge any discretion to fashion an appropriate sentence.For example, 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) demands that ten-year mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed when a defendant commits a federal drug offense “after a prior conviction for a felony drug offenses has become final.” This draconian sentencing scheme inevitably produces unfair and unjust sentencing in drug cases, like the sentence imposed on Vickie L. Sanders.In a December 3, 2018 decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed on Sanders pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(B) for several federal drug offenses relating to a conspiracy to manufactured 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.

- -; 2020 WL 6293431 (Oct. 27, 2020). The Court analyzed the interplay between the state medical marijuana law, the state worker’s compensation insurance scheme, and the federal Controlled Substances Act, 18 U.S.C. §841 (“CSA”), which criminalizes the possession and use of marijuana as well as the aiding and abetting of a violation of the CSA. In doing so, the Court recognized that the “legal landscape of medical marijuana law may, at best, be described as a hazy thicket,” with marijuana being illegal at the federal level, but Massachusetts, as well as a majority of other states, having legalized medical marijuana and created a regulatory scheme for its administration and usage.

CommentaryThe Davis decision is significant and broadens the number of defendants who may be eligible to apply for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act, an outcome that aligns with decisions already issued by many other sister circuits. Depending on the statute of conviction and the specific allegations in the indictment, Davis demonstrates how sentencing courts may be able to take back some of the discretion that they had lost in connection with sentencing decisions for defendants previously sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. §841. As seen here, Davis ultimately served a prison term of about 10 years in connection with conduct that still currently carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment (in those cases in which the government elects to file a prior felony information under 21 U.S.C. §851, which the government is not required to do and only files in certain cases).

A meth conviction can result in a punishment ranging from a fine, to a misdemeanor jail term, or a serious prison term for a felony conviction.For example, at the federal level a first conviction for possession of meth can result in a “term of imprisonment of not more than one year” under 18 U.S.C. § 844(a) while a first conviction for possession of 5 grams of meth requires the imposition of a mandatory 5-year minimum and a 10-year minimum for possession of 50 grams or more with intent to distribute under 18 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(B)(viii).The Texas Controlled Substances Act has four penalty groups, of which meth is assigned to penalty group I. Possession of any controlled substance under this group is a serious offense.

Outrages of the WeekUS v. White (7th Cir) Sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 is proper when defendant took the stand in his own defense and submitted perjured testimony denying any involvement or participation in the criminal scheme for which he was convicted, after government witnesses uniformly testified that defendant was personally involved in the criminal scheme. US v. Crickon (7th Cir) District court had discretion to decline sentence reduction of sixty-year-old defendant under 18 USC 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) following his conviction for possession of narcotics with intent to distribute in violation of 18 USC 846, and defendant's claims of drug dependence and abuse are not a basis for downward departure under USSG 5H.4. US v. Larrabee (1st Cir) Evidence that defendant possessed material, nonpublic information concerning a merger between two banks, and that he conveyed that information to a stockbroker with whom he had a close personal and financial relationship is sufficient for conviction for securities fraud.