7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms district court’s ruling in sentencing of gang member

Adobe Stock photo

A district court considered potential unwarranted sentencing disparities before it sentenced a Latin Dragon Nation gang member to 15 years in prison for his involvement in a man’s 2017 murder, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Tuesday.

In United States v. Keenan Seymour No. 23-1236, Seymour sought resentencing because he believed the district court erred in three areas: when making factual findings, holding Seymour responsible for murder and failing to discuss unwarranted sentencing disparities.

In 2017, Seymour was part of the Latin Dragon Nation, a street gang based in Northwest Indiana and Southeast Chicago. That year, one of Seymour’s friends and fellow Dragons was killed in retaliation for the murder of a member of the Latin Kings, a rival gang to his own.

After the murder, Seymour expressed his anger and referenced getting payback in social media posts, according to the circuit court.

In the early morning hours of November 24, 2017, Seymour and three friends were driving around and smoking, drinking, taking Xanax and making videos “dropping…gang signs” when they stopped at one of the men’s houses.

While there, that man got a gun.

Later that morning, the men came upon a vehicle they thought belonged to a King.

The men pulled up beside it, flashed gang signs and chased the vehicle. Eventually, the passenger with the gun shot at the vehicle, killing Manuel Salazar, who was mistaken as a gang member.

In 2019, Seymour and other Dragons were indicted by a grand jury on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges and in 2022, Seymour pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.

As part of his plea, Seymour admitted to being a member of the gang and being in the car when Salazar was killed but said he didn’t know his friend was going to start shooting.

During an evidentiary hearing with the district court to dispute Seymour’s argument, evidence was presented showing Seymour flashing gang signs, holding guns and talking about his friend’s murder.

The court also heard from the three other men who were in the vehicle during Salazar’s murder.

They said the discussion to get the gun was loud enough for Seymour to hear and that, once in the vehicle, Seymour was reasonably able to see the gun.

The group did not explicitly say they planned to shoot Kings but there was “an understanding” that they would look out for rival members to shoot, according to court documents.

One of the men said Seymour directed the group to a specific street in King territory to drive to and that after the shooting, Seymour “was smirking and laughing and shaking up [the Dragon’s handshake]” with one of the other men.

Seymour said he did not hear any conversation about getting the gun, nor did he know his friend had it.

On cross-examination, however, Seymour was presented with statements he made to police shortly after the shooting, where he admitted to seeing the gun before the shooting and that while he didn’t plan on shooting anyone himself, he saw the gun and “knew what was going on.”

Seymour challenged the district court’s findings that he knew his friend had a gun and knew he wanted to find Kings to shoot.

In reviewing the district court’s findings, the 7th Circuit argued the court had sufficient evidence to prove Seymour knew his friend had the gun and wanted to shoot rival gang members.

Seymour also argued the district court made a mistake in calculating his offense level for Salazar’s death, saying the base offense level for a RICO conspiracy is lower than what he was given. The circuit court argued Seymour’s offense level was put higher because evidence proved his connection to aiding and abetting in Salazar’s murder, warranting a higher offense level.

In point three, Seymour claimed the district court didn’t avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among codefendants, saying the shorter sentences of two codefendants warranted a lighter sentence for himself.

The circuit court, however, argued Seymour’s conduct was vastly different from the conduct of the two codefendants with lighter sentences.

Judge Joel Flaum wrote that Seymour’s argument that district court erred by finding some of the two codefendants’ testimony credible was “a nonstarter.”

“Moreover, Seymour ignores that the district court credited the portions of (Alec) Aguilar and (DeAndre) McGowan;’s testimony that were consistent with his statements to police within days of the shooting. Seymour may have told a different story during the evidentiary hearing, but that idea does not make the district court’s assessment of the evidence clearly erroneous,” Flaum wrote.

Further, the circuit court argued the codefendants’ sentences were different than his because of prosecutorial discretion, not judicial error.

Finally, Flaum pointed out that Seymour gave the court discretion to consider all 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and it’s up to the prosecutor to dismiss a sentencing enhancement for some and not others.

“The district court considered each of the § 3553(a) factors, including un-warranted disparities. Seymour’s below-Guidelines, 180-month sentence is substantively reasonable,” Flaum wrote.