United States v. Trotter, Mardell

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 3, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee, No. 05-3488
v. (D.C. No. 04-CR-20140-CM)
MARDELL TROTTER, a/k/a Juice, (D. Kan.)
a/k/a Dell,
Defendant–Appellant.
ORDER ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT *
Before MURPHY, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, distribution and possession of cocaine
powder and crack cocaine. See United States v. Trotter, 483 F.3d 694, 697 (10th
Cir. 2007). On appeal, we affirmed his conviction and sentence. Id. at 703. We
rejected his argument that the district court erred by failing to impose a lower
sentence based on the crack/powder cocaine disparity, holding that this argument
was foreclosed by our decision in United States v. McCullough, 457 F.3d 1150,
1171-72 (10th Cir. 2006). Id. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
and vacated and remanded this case for further consideration in light of
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. ____, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007).
As discussed more thoroughly in the companion case of United States v.
Trotter, No. 05-3487, ____F.3d____ (10th Cir. 2008), our opinion on remand in
Defendant’s co-defendant’s case, the Court held in Kimbrough that “it would not
be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a
particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater
than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes.” 128 S. Ct. at 576. The Court
concluded in Kimbrough that the district court properly considered both the
particular circumstances of the defendant’s case and “the Sentencing
Commission’s consistent and emphatic position that the crack/powder disparity is
at odds with § 3553(a).” Id.
As in the companion case, we find the sentencing transcript in the record
before us ambiguous as to whether the district court rejected Defendant’s request
for a variance based on a belief that the crack/powder disparity did not warrant a
variance under the specific circumstances of Defendant’s case or on a belief that
the disparity would not warrant varying from the Guidelines in any case. We
therefore REMAND this case for the district court to clarify why it rejected
Defendant’s request. If it rejected his request based on a belief that it did not
have discretion to specifically consider whether the disparity resulted in a
-2-
disproportionately harsh sentence, the court is to conduct resentencing in light of
Kimbrough.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-