United States v. Randall, No. 11-3257 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
A federal jury convicted Defendant Chester Randall, Jr. of conspiracy to participate in a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization The district court sentenced Defendant in May 2010. Defendant’s prior convictions yielded six criminal history points. The sentencing guidelines imposed an additional criminal history point because Defendant "committed the instant offense less than two years after release from imprisonment" on a qualifying sentence. The district court sentenced Defendant to 46 months, the low end of the applicable guideline range. Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal from Defendant’s conviction and sentence within the fourteen-day filing period. Meanwhile, Amendment 742 to the sentencing guidelines took effect in November 2010. Amendment 742 eliminated recency points. Three weeks later, Defendant filed a pro se "Motion to Modify Sentence Pending Appeal." Defendant argued that Amendment 742 should be applied retroactively to reduce his sentence to 37 months. The district court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion because his notice of appeal from his conviction divested the court of jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if no appeal were pending, it would have no authority to reduce Defendant’s sentence because "[a] guideline amendment is applied retroactively only when it has been specifically listed" in the sentencing guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court was correct in its analysis that it lacked jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Defendant's appeal.
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.