United States v. Duke, No. 18-1371 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's life sentence for serious drug trafficking and firearms crimes imposed after resentencing, holding that the district court was aware of the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and considered them in imposing the sentence; assuming without deciding that defendant raised a proper objection to the adequacy of the district court's sentencing explanation, there was no procedural error; the district court provided an individualized explanation for defendant's sentence by discussing the staggering magnitude of defendant's crimes and his efforts at rehabilitation; and defendant's within-Guidelines life sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the gravity of defendant's crimes and the need for adequate general deterrence outweighed other factors and warranted a sentence at the top of the range.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion in the case, see U.S. v. Duke, 940 F.2d 1113 (8th Cir. 1991). The Central District of Illinois granted Duke's Section 2241 petition, vacated his firearms convictions under Bailey and transferred the case back to the District of Minnesota for resentencing. On transfer the district court again sentenced Duke to life. The district court was aware of all of the relevant Section 3553(a)factors and considered them in setting sentence; the district court's explanation of the reasons for the sentence were sufficient to afford meaningful appellate review; given the information readily available in the record, it was not incumbent on the district court to spell out in any greater detail than it did the "staggering magnitude" of Duke's crimes; life sentence was within the advisory guidelines range and was substantively reasonable.
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.