United States v. Gatewood

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Gordon

    2:97-cr-167-6 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 19, 2021)

    In any event, these arguments are without merit. See Richardson, 948 F.3d at 741-742 (Hobbs Act robberies which served as the predicate offenses for defendant's §924(c) convictions were crimes of violence under the elements clause and were not dependent on the residual clause held unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019)); United States v. Gatewood, 807 Fed.Appx. 459, 462-464 (6th Cir. 2020)(failure to make new §924(c) penalties retroactive did not violate defendant's equal protection or Eighth Amendment rights). B. Rehabilitation

  2. Carswell v. Mich. Parole Bd.

    Case No. 5:18-cv-10236 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2021)

    Courts reviewing Eighth Amendment proportionality must remain highly deferential to the legislature in determining the appropriate punishments for crimes. United States v. Gatewood, 807 F. App'x 459, 463 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 999 (Kennedy, J.)). "In implementing this 'narrow proportionality principle,' the Sixth Circuit has recognized that 'only an extreme disparity between crime and sentence offends the Eighth Amendment.'"

  3. Bardoni v. Howard

    Case No. 20-11861 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2020)

    Courts reviewing Eighth Amendment proportionality must remain highly deferential to the legislature in determining the appropriate punishments for crimes. United States v. Gatewood, 807 F. App'x 459, 463 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 999 (Kennedy, J.)). "In implementing this 'narrow proportionality principle,' the Sixth Circuit has recognized that 'only an extreme disparity between crime and sentence offends the Eighth Amendment.'"

  4. Davis v. United States

    No. 2:18-cv-02233-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 23, 2020)

    A defendant cannot benefit from Section 403 when the trial court pronounced a sentence before the Act was enacted. United States v. Gatewood, 807 Fed. Appx. 459, 462 (6th Cir. 2020). A trial court imposes a sentence when the trial court announces it.

  5. United States v. Moore

    481 F. Supp. 3d 703 (M.D. Tenn. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    And his claim of what amounts to the ineffective assistance of counsel in pushing him to reject a very favorable plea deal is a matter that should have been, but, regrettably, was not, raised in his § 2255 motion (see Note 1, supra ) and cannot now provide a basis for relief in the absence of permission from the Sixth Circuit to file a second or successive habeas petition. In United States v. Gatewood , 807 F. App'x 459 (6th Cir. 2020), the Sixth Circuit upheld the prison term of a defendant sentenced approximately one month before the enactment of the First Step Act. The court held that, because the "stacking" interpretation of § 924(c) applied at the time of sentence, such that his sentence would have been substantially lower if it had been issued after the effective date of the Act, "that disparity does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation."

  6. United States v. Crutcher

    Case No. 3:03-cr-00205-10 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 20, 2020)

    While this court finds that the gross unfairness resulting from that failure in combination with other compelling circumstances might justify a sentence reduction under § 3582, this defendant has not provided compelling enough circumstances to justify relief. In United States v. Gatewood, 807 F. App'x 459 (6th Cir. 2020), the Sixth Circuit upheld the prison term of a defendant sentenced approximately one month before the enactment of the First Step Act. The court recognized that his sentence would have been substantially lower if it had been issued after the effective date of the Act, but it held that "that disparity does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation."