US v. Trice, 05-3347
Convictions and sentences on drug conspiracy charges are affirmed over arguments that: 1) the district court erred by increasing a sentence based on an unsupported factual finding that defendant refused legitimate employment; 2) one defendant's Guidelines range sentence was unreasonably harsh; 3) one defendant's counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not informing him of the difference between sentences for crack and powder cocaine; and 4) crack and cocaine sentencing differences violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- Argued 02/21/2007
- Decided 04/30/2007
- Published 04/30/2007
- FLAUM, Circuit Judge., Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
- United States Seventh Circuit
- For Appellant:
- Jeffrey McReynolds, Greenville, IL, pro se.
- For Appellees:
- Jeffrey M. Anderson (submitted), Peter M. Jarosz (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Jeffrey M. Brandt (argued), Robinson Brandt Law Offices, Cincinnati, OH, Thomas Peters (argued), Chicago, IL, Joy Bertrand, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.