proclaiming a prior decision was not binding where that decision "relied on a misunderstanding of our prior precedent" and a mistake in reasoning
How later courts described this case
- proclaiming a prior decision was not binding where that decision "relied on a misunderstanding of our prior precedent" and a mistake in reasoning
- defendants sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.1 “have no sentencing challenge based on the severity of the crack/powder disparity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (2010)
Corner overruled Welton
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (2010)
Both Welton and Vazquez held that the principles of Kimbrough are inapplicable to the career offender provision because, unlike the crack cocaine Guidelines at issue in Kimbrough, § 4B1.1 was promulgated pursuant to direct statutory command.
The opinion
*500 EVANS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
As Judge Bauer’s persuasive opinion makes perfectly clear, Liddell and Harris can no longer (if they ever could) live comfortably together. One, or the other, has to move out. And, given the impressive array of authority marshaled in today’s opinion, that somebody has to be Liddell. But for the reasons noted in Liddell, Congress should take a look at this issue because the ugly hand of the 100-to-l discriminatory erack-to-powdercocaine ratio is still at work in cases like this.