U.S. v. Hudson, 09-3680
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | TINDER |
| Citation | 627 F.3d 309 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 09-3680,09-3680 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 2010 |
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arthur HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-3680.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued May 27, 2010.
Decided Dec. 6, 2010.
Christopher P. Hotaling, Attorney (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carol A. Brook, Attorney, Imani Chiphe, Attorney (argued), Office of the Federal Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BAUER, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
TINDER, Circuit Judge.
In late September or early October of 2005, Arthur Hudson received approximately 20 kilograms of cocaine on consignment from a person identified in the record below as "Individual A" at a Culver's restaurant in Romeoville, Illinois. After this deal, "A" started cooperating with the Drug Enforcement Administration. On October 17, 2005, "A" and an undercover DEA agent met Hudson in a Walgreens parking lot in Romeoville to get the money Hudson owed for the previously fronted drugs. Hudson gave the informant the keys to his Chevy Impala and told him how to find the money inside the car's "trap," a hidden compartment. "A" and the agent found about $240,225 in cash and about 600 grams of powder cocaine and 80 grams of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine inside the trap. The trio met again on October 18, 2005, this time with a payment of $92,495 being made through the use of the Chevy's trap.
A federal magistrate judge signed a sealed criminal complaint on December 14, 2005, charging Hudson with knowingly and intentionally possessing cocaine and crack cocaine with intent to distribute it. Federal agents arrested Hudson the next day in his Chicago home. His wife consented to a search of the home, during which agents found guns and drug-related paraphernalia, including a Ruger 9mm semi-automatic pistol (next to a kilogram of cocaine) in a filing cabinet drawer.
Hudson pled guilty on June 19, 2008, to possessing five kilograms of cocaine or more with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and possessing a firearm (the Ruger) in furtherance of his drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Hudson admitted the drug crime and that he possessed and stored the Ruger to protect himself and his drug stash. The district court sentenced Hudson to the statutory mandatory minimum 120 months' incarceration for the drug charge and to 60 months' incarceration for gun possession in furtherance of drug dealing, to be served consecutively to the period of incarceration on the drug charge.
Hudson appeals only his sentence, contending that we should vacate the 60-month consecutive portion of the sentence because the district court mistakenly believed § 924(c)(1)(A) required a mandatory minimum term of consecutive confinement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landing v. Astrue, CASE NO.: 3:11-CV-404-TLS-CAN
...20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) after finding that a treating source's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. See, e.g., Campbell, 627 F.3d at 309 (reversing where the ALJ did not explicitly address the checklist of factors, the properPage 9consideration of which may have caused the ALJ......
-
Nelson v. Colvin, CIVIL NO. 3:13cv1050
...20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) after finding that a treating source's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. See, e.g., Campbell, 627 F.3d at 309 (reversing where the ALJ did not explicitly address the checklist of factors, the proper consideration of which may have caused the ALJ to a......
-
Thea P. v. Saul, 18 C 8058
...1125 (7th Cir. 2016) (" . . . ALJ erred by continuing to rely on an outdated assessment by a non-examining physician . . . "); Campbell, 627 F.3d at 309 (reviewers' opinions may be entitled to less weight where they did not have the benefit of seeing complete treatment records). The ALJ acc......
-
Weber v. Astrue, CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-00359
...were essentially uncontradicted for the timePage 19period that Weber was "clean" from illegal drug or alcohol use. See Campbell, 627 F.3d at 309; Jelinek, 2011 WL 5319852, at *6 (advising that an ALJ would be "hard-pressed to justify casting aside" a recent treating psychiatrist's opinion i......