Red Dog

Federal criminal defense, blitzes and otherwise, in the Sixth Circuit and beyond.

To subscribe to this blog by e-mail, enter your e-mail address in the box below.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Abbott means what it says. . . .

United States v. Thomas, No. 09-3827 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2011) (unpublished).  Panel of Judges Merritt, Moore, and Mays (W.D. Tenn.).

Conviction for possession of more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, and for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense.  Sentence of 151 months on the drugs + 60 months consecutive for the gun. 

Defendant argued it was error to impose the 60-month consecutive sentence given the 10-year minimum sentence for the drug count.  Defendant cited United States v. Williams, 558 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2009), in which the court concluded that the 924(c) sentence did not apply when the defendant was subject to a higher mandatory minimum for the predicate drug offense.  That was the old United States v. Almany, 598 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2010), argument.  Now, however, the S. Ct. has made it clear that the 924(c) sentence applies and is consecutive regardless of the mandatory minimum for the predicate offenseAbbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010).  Sentence affirmed.