David Conrad v. USA, No. 14-3216 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 4, 2016.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 May 24, 2016 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 14-3216 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. DAVID CONRAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 14 C 4343 Amy J. St. Eve, Judge. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER The opinion of this court issued on March 4, 2016, is amended by replacing one paragraph with a new paragraph. The original paragraph on pages 4 and 5 was: “It’s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible sentences, because the judge doesn’t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however effectuated, “procedural” seems a misuse of the word. But although the increase in the guidelines range of which the defendant complains both seems substantive and postdated his crime, we don’t think he’s entitled to be resentenced.” Appeal No. 14-3216 Page 2 The replacement paragraph is: “It’s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible sentences, because the judge doesn’t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however effectuated, “procedural” might seem a misuse of the word. But the Supreme Court has reserved the label “substantive” (meaning therefore retroactive) for rules that change the sentence that a judge can lawfully impose. See Schriro v. Summerlin, supra, 542 U.S. at 352. A change in the guidelines affects the sentence that a judge is likely to impose but does not alter the range of sentences that he can lawfully impose. So although the increase in the guidelines range of which the defendant complains in this case not only postdated his crime but also could have had a significant effect on his sentence, he is not entitled to be resentenced.”
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.
