United States v. Thomas Cureton

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 affirmed de- fendant Cureton’s convictions and sentences for using a fire- arm 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 manda- tory minimum sentence under § 924(c) when deciding the sentences for other crimes. We then remanded to the district court for the limited pur- pose of giving that court an opportunity to determine whether it would have imposed the same sentence on Cu- reton, now knowing that in light of Dean, it may consider the mandatory sentence under § 924(c) when deciding the sen- tences 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 ex- plaining 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 vicious- ness of Cureton’s crimes, including the kidnapping and tor- ture of the woman who was his victim. The order on limited remand referred to Cureton’s “extreme” capacity for “vio- lence and depravity” and said that any lower sentence would not be sufficient to serve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court has complied with the terms of our lim- ited 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.