United States v. Johnson, No. 06-4001-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 2008) (found here)
Johnson is the first post-Kimbrough/Gall remand that I've seen on the question of whether a crack sentence was reasonable. Although the Second Circuit doesn't opine on the reasonablenss of the crack sentence itself, it does remand for consideration of whether it was reasonable, thereby giving the district court another crack at sentencing Johnson. Is this the first in a developing trend of post-Kimbrough/Gall reasonableness remands? Or was it just that the 165 month sentence imposed on Johnson may have been unreasonable in light of his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine?
Here are the operative paragraphs from the decision:
Defendant-appellant John Johnson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine. The District Court sentenced Johnson principally to 156 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson challenges the reasonableness of the sentence imposed upon him.
Without intimating any view on the reasonableness vel non of the sentence imposed by the District Court, we remand this case for plenary reconsideration of the sentence imposed in accordance with the Supreme Court's recent decisions, Kimbrough v. United States, 552 S.Ct. ___ (2007), and Gall v. United States, 552 S. Ct. ___ (2007).