USA v. James Davis, No. 11-3653 (7th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 Submitted August 28, 2012* Decided September 4, 2012 Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 11 3653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES DAVIS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 11 CR 78 WMC 01 William M. Conley, Chief Judge. O R D E R James Davis was caught with approximately 300 grams of crack cocaine in June 2011. He pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, the statutory minimum for that amount of crack, id. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). In the district court Davis did not dispute that he was subject to this mandatory minimum, but now he argues that the sentencing judge should have decreed * The appellant asserts, without contradiction from the government, that oral argument is unnecessary. We agree, and thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(f). No. 11 3653 Page 2 the crack amounts which trigger mandatory penalties in § 841(b) to be unfairly low and exercised discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a lower sentence. This argument is meritless. A district judge may sentence a crack offender below the guidelines imprisonment range if the judge disagrees as a matter of policy with the Sentencing Commission s view about the relative offense levels assigned to like amounts of powder and crack cocaine, Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 91, 109 10 (2007); United States v. Etchin, 614 F.3d 726, 740 (7th Cir. 2010), but policy disagreements do not permit judges to disregard a statutory minimum sentence set by Congress, United States v. Nigg, 667 F.3d 929, 934 35 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Brucker, 646 F.3d 1012, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011) ( [I]n Kimbrough, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized, post Booker, that sentencing courts remain bound by mandatory minimums. ); United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432, 436 37 (7th Cir. 2007). The proper forum for Davis arguments is Congress, not the federal courts. 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.
