NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued April 12, 2013
Decided April 18, 2013
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
No. 12‐2953
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff‐Appellee, District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.
v.
No. 3:10‐cr‐00175‐bbc‐1
SHAON ARCH,
Defendant‐Appellant. Barbara B. Crabb,
Judge.
O R D E R
Shaon Arch pleaded guilty to one count of illegally possessing a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A PSR was prepared, which calculated Arch’s base offense at 14 because he
had prior drug convictions that did not meet the definition of a controlled substance violation
No. 12‐2953 Page 2
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. The probation office later submitted an addendum to the PSR,
increasing Arch’s base level from 14 to 20 pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(4). This increase was based
on a prior drug conviction for conspiracy in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois.
The probation office relied on a copy of the underlying indictment, which charged Arch with
delivering cocaine in violation of the relevant Illinois complied statutes, in making this increase.
The district court accepted the elevated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and sentenced Arch
to 84 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release.
Arch now contends the elevated base offense level in the addendum was improper because
the underlying indictment includes counts that were later dismissed. In other words, the
district court could not reasonably rely on the document to increase his sentence under
§ 2K2.1(a)(4) because the document did not explain whether Arch had been convicted of a
distribution offense, which satisfies § 4B1.2, or a possession offense, which might not.
At oral argument, Arch’s counsel presented the Court with a newly‐discovered document
that shows Arch’s charges from the drug conspiracy indictment were amended. The parties
then stated that they were in agreement the case should be remanded to determine whether the
newly‐discovered document would have affected Arch’s sentence. In light of this document
and the parties’ agreement, we REMAND this case for further consideration.