USA v. Lawrence Taylor, No. 10-1304 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 21, 2010.
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 July 13, 2011 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 10-1304 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division v. No. 10-1304 LAWRENCE TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Hon. Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge. ORDER Lawrence Taylor pleaded guilty to bank robbery in 2009, which subjected him to sentences both for the instant robbery, and for violating his supervised release in connection with a prior bank robbery. We ordered a limited remand because the district court did not clearly appreciate or exercise its discretion in making Taylor s two sentences consecutive instead of concurrent. The district court has responded, clarifying that it did understand at the time of sentencing that it could make the sentences concurrent or consecutive, and enumerating several convincing reasons for imposing the sentences consecutively. We invited the parties to respond, and Taylor s counsel supplied a response stating that in view of the district court s memorandum, he perceived no non-frivolous argument against the sentencing package. No. 10-1403 Page 2 Counsel nevertheless requested that Taylor be allowed an additional 30 days to research the issue himself. We never formally granted that request, but nevertheless, well over 30 days have passed with no response from Taylor forthcoming. Moreover, we agree with defense counsel that the district court s memorandum shows that the district court appreciated its discretion and exercised it appropriately. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
