United States of America v. Emmett Paige

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 09-3060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EMMETT PAIGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:07-cr-00402-1—James B. Zagel, Judge.
ARGUED JUNE 3, 2010—DECIDED JULY 6, 2010
Before MANION, EVANS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
EVANS, Circuit Judge. Emmett Paige appeals arguing
that his 96-month sentence is too long. He says the dis-
trict judge failed to adequately address his arguments
for a shorter term. It’s an odd argument, considering
that the PSI, accurately it would appear, pegged Paige’s
guideline range at 151-188 months. Instead of that range,
the judge acceded to the parties’ request and used a
range of 87-108 months, one that was negotiated by the
parties in Paige’s plea agreement.

-- 1 of 3 --

2 No. 09-3060
The facts are simple. Over a sixteen-day period in
June of 2007, Paige robbed four banks, each in a different
small community just outside of Chicago. He hit one
in Burbank, followed that up eleven days later with one
in Westmont, and then hit two, one in Countryside and
one in Addison, over the next five days. All four rob-
beries went down the same way—Paige entered a bank
and gave a demand note to a teller that said something
like, “This is a stick up, give me all the money or I’ll
shoot.” In each robbery, he received cash and fled. His
scores were $8,741, $5,755, $4,924, and $2,520 for a
grand total of $21,960. His spree came to a halt after
his getaway car (driven by a co-defendant, James
Jennings) went into a ditch while being pursued by
Addison police officers after the fourth bank was hit.
On appeal, Paige argues that the sentencing judge
erred by failing to adequately address his difficult
family background, the steps he took to further his ed-
ucation and vocational skills while incarcerated, his
history of mental and emotional health problems, and
his addiction to gambling and illegal drugs. While the
judge did not directly state how each of these items
factored into the sentence, he did not ignore them. He
talked about Paige’s difficult family background. He
recommended that Paige serve his time in a prison
where he could train to become a chef. He also recom-
mended that Paige participate in a residential drug treat-
ment program while in prison. Upon Paige’s release,
he mandated that Paige participate in mental health
treatment and attend gamblers anonymous meetings.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 09-3060 3
Even if the judge did not adequately address these
arguments, we regularly affirm sentences where the
district judge does not explicitly mention each mitiga-
tion argument raised by the defendant. See, e.g., United
States v. Brock, 433 F.3d 931, 936 (7th Cir. 2006) (district
court was not required to address arguments about
military service and difficult childhood when it gave
adequate reasons supporting its sentence); United States
v. Newsom, 428 F.3d 685, 687-88 (7th Cir. 2005) (district
court was not required to specifically address defendant’s
depression, alcohol abuse, and work history). Indeed,
sentencing judges must only demonstrate meaningful
consideration of § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Laufle,
433 F.3d 981, 987 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, the judge’s dis-
cussion of Paige’s difficult childhood and previous con-
victions, along with his comment that Paige “does not
easily learn a lesson,” make it clear that he gave mean-
ingful consideration to § 3553(a) factors. And on top
of that, considering how long sentences are in other
cases in federal court, we think a term of only 96 months
for four bank robberies, the last ending in a violent
chase, was a bargain for Mr. Paige.
For these reasons, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.
7-6-10

-- 3 of 3 --