United States v. Cureton, No. 15-3581 (7th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

In his third round of appeals, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Cureton’s convictions and sentences for using a firearm during a crime of violence and related crimes. The Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Dean v. United States (2017), which disapproved circuit precedents barring judges sentencing defendants under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and other crimes from considering the mandatory minimum sentence under section 924(c) when deciding the sentences for other crimes. On remand, the district judge issued an order explaining that he saw no basis for reducing Cureton’s sentence, focusing on the extraordinary viciousness of Cureton’s crimes, including the kidnapping and torture of the woman who was his victim. The order referred to Cureton’s “extreme” capacity for “violence and depravity” and said that any lower sentence would not be sufficient to serve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The Seventh Circuit then affirmed Cureton’s 444-month total term of imprisonment.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 5, 2017.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 15-3575 & 15-3581 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS CURETON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Nos. 10-CR-30106 & 10-CR-30200 — David R. Herndon, Judge. ____________________ ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DECIDED ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. In his third round of appeals, we a rmed defendant Cureton’s convictions and sentences for using a rearm during a crime of violence and related crimes. United States v. Cureton, 845 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017), which disapproved our circuit 2 Nos. 15-3575 & 15-3581 precedents such as United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007), barring judges sentencing defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and other crimes from considering the mandatory minimum sentence under § 924(c) when deciding the sentences for other crimes. We then remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of giving that court an opportunity to determine whether it would have imposed the same sentence on Cureton, now knowing that in light of Dean, it may consider the mandatory sentence under § 924(c) when deciding the sentences for other crimes. United States v. Cureton, 882 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2018). The district court solicited and reviewed briefs from the parties and acted promptly. On March 21, 2018, the district judge issued an order explaining that he saw no basis for reducing Cureton’s sentence. Judge Herndon quoted his own comments in resentencing Cureton and Judge Murphy’s comments at Cureton’s original sentencing. Both judges focused on the extraordinary viciousness of Cureton’s crimes, including the kidnapping and torture of the woman who was his victim. The order on limited remand referred to Cureton’s “extreme” capacity for “violence and depravity” and said that any lower sentence would not be su cient to serve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court has complied with the terms of our limited remand. We see no need for further proceedings in this case on the subject of Dean. The judgments of the district court, including the 444-month total term of imprisonment, are AFFIRMED.

Primary Holding

Seventh Circuit affirms a 444-month sentence, following remand for consideration in light of the Supreme Court's holding allowing sentencing judges to consider the maximum sentence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) in deciding sentences for other crimes.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.