Tag Archives: ACCA

Supreme Court, Weary of ACCA, Ducks Trio of Cases – Update for October 22, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

SUPREME COURT REFUSES CHANCE TO APPLY JOHNSON TO MANDATORY GUIDELINES

Three years ago, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act definition of a crime of violence, which included within its sweep any crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” was unconstitutionally vague. Because the ACCA’s definition was identical to the Guidelines’ “career offender” definition, a lot of people thought that it was only a matter of time before “career offender” sentences would be cut as well.

thilo181022But two years after Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled in Beckles v. United States that because the Guidelines are merely advisory, a constitutional vagueness challenge to the career offender guidelines would not work. But the Guidelines have only been advisory since 2005, when United States v. Booker held that mandatory sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional. What the Beckles court did not answer was the question of whether someone whose “career offender” sentence was imposed under the pre-2005 mandatory Guidelines could successfully make a Johnson challenge. Nevertheless, Beckles seemed to presage a holding that would invalidate mandatory Guideline “career offender” sentences under Johnson as soon as the proper case presented itself to the Supremes.

Thilo Brown, as well as two other mandatory Guidelines “career offenders,” had such cases, and their petitions for writs of certiorari arrived at the high court last summer while the Justices were gone fishin’. The three cases would provide the Court a chance to answer the Johnson mandatory “career offender” question everyone thought the Justices had all but begged to have presented.

Apparently not. Last week, the Court denied certiorari to all three.

The decision not to review Thilo’s case drew a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, rare for a cert denial. She said, “This important question, which has generated divergence among the lower courts, calls out for an answer… Regardless of where one stands on the merits of how far Johnson extends, this case presents an important question of federal law that has divided the courts of appeals and in theory could determine the liberty of over 1,000 people. That sounds like the kind of case we ought to hear.”

Brown v. United States, Case 17-9276 (Supreme Court, Oct. 15, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Enough is Still Too Much in the 6th Circuit – Update for October 16, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

WHEN TIME SERVED AIN’T GOOD ENOUGH
Sweet Brown should have been Steve's judge.
Sweet Brown should have been Steve’s judge.

Steve Mitchell did 17 years on a 21-year Armed Career Criminal Act conviction before his sentencing court, applying Johnson v. United States, held that one of his three predicate crimes of violence was not violent at all. The District Court sentenced him to time served plus three years of supervised release, and cut him loose.

Steve appealed. Yeah, you read that right. He appealed the decision that set him free. But Steve’s claim was anything but frivolous: he argued that because his conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun (18 USC 922(g)) could not be enhanced by the ACCA, the maximum sentence was only 10 years, and the District Court should have resentenced him to 10 years, not time served (which worked out to 17 years). What Steve wanted, of course, was for the District Court to recognize that he had served seven years extra, and therefore cut him loose from supervised release, too.

Last week, the 6th Circuit agreed with Steve that his “time-served” corrected sentence is unlawful. Absent the ACCA enhancement, Steve could have received only a ten-year-maximum sentence. But when the district court corrected his sentence to remove the enhancement, it gave him a “time-served” — or 17-year – sentence. The Circuit said that sentence in excess of the statutory maximum is unlawful.

doover181015The appellate court remanded Steve’s case to the district court for a re-do that recognized (1) a time-served sentence that is equivalent to a term-of-months sentence above the statutory maximum is invalid, and (2) while a district court has the discretion to select appropriate proceedings for correcting a sentence, the corrected sentence must comply with substantive and procedural reasonableness.

The Circuit did not rule on the district court’s reimposition of 3 years’ supervised release, holding that “on remand, the district court should take the opportunity to provide an appropriate rationale for its supervised release decision.”

Who knows? Maybe the sentencing court will decide that Steve has suffered enough.

United States v. Mitchell, Case No. 17-5904 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root
LISAStatHeader2small

Another ACCA Predicate Bites the Dust – Update for September 18, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

9TH CIRCUIT HOLDS WASHINGTON STATE DRUG STATUTE OVERBROAD FOR ACCA

A year ago, the 9th Circuit ruled in United States v. Valdivia-Flores that Washington State’s accomplice liability statute rendered its drug trafficking law categorically broader than a federal drug trafficking equivalent. Thus, a Washington drug conviction was found to not categorically constitute an illicit trafficking offense and to not be an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

abet180919The federal aiding-and-abetting standard requires the government to prove an accomplice has “specific intent” to facilitate the crime. Washington law by contrast requires only that the government prove a person “with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime… solicits, commands, encourages, or requests the principal to commit it; or aids or agrees to aid [the principal] in planning or committing it.”

drugdealer180228Specific intent and knowledge are distinct. “Intentionally abetting the commission of a crime involves a more culpable state of mind than knowingly doing so.” Validivia-Flores held, “because the Washington statute does criminalize conduct that would not constitute a drug offense under federal law — due to the distinct aiding and abetting definitions — it is overbroad.”

Last week, although the government vigorously argued to the contrary, the 9th Circuit ruled there was no pertinent difference between the “serious drug offense” description in the Armed Career Criminal Act and the generic “illicit trafficking” described in the statute analyzed in Valdivia-Flores. Thus, the Washington drug statute is broad than the generic drug offense that constitutes a “serious drug felony” under the ACCA, and no longer can count as a predicate for an ACCA conviction.

United States v. Franklin, Case No. 17-30011 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea – Update for September 17, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

TWO MORE CIRCUITS CALL MANDATORY GUIDELINE JOHNSON CHALLENGES UNTIMELY

Last week, the 6th and 9th Circuits joined the 8th Circuit in ruling that post-conviction motions filed pursuant to 28 USC 2255 by people sentenced as Guidelines career offenders under the pre-Booker mandatory guidelines are not timely.

devil180918In the 2015 Johnson v. United States decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a part of the statutory definition of “crime of violence,” the so-called residual clause that included as a violent crime any offense that carried a significant risk someone might get hurt, was unconstitutionally vague, because no one could tell for sure what kind of crime might qualify. That definition was in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 USC 924(e)(2), but similar language appeared in the “crime of violence” definition used in Chapter 4B of the Sentencing Guidelines, which defined a “career criminal” and applied dramatically higher sentencing ranges.

Immediately, prisoners with “career offender” sentences filed motions claiming that the Johnson logic meant their Guidelines sentences were flawed. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Beckles v. United States that because the Guidelines are advisory, the constitutional concerns in Johnson did not apply to the residual clause of 4B1.2(a)(2).

The rub is that until the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, the Guidelines were mandatory, not advisory. The Beckles decision specifically noted that the issue of whether Johnson might apply to someone labeled a “career offender” under the mandatory pre-Booker Guidelines was not being decided by Beckles.

Under 28 USC 2255(f)(3), a person seeking to take advantage of a change in the law to modify his or her sentence must file within a year of the decision. Within a year of Johnson, the prisoners in both the 6th and 9th Circuit cases filed 2255 motions claiming their district courts relied on the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) to conclude that each was a Guidelines career offender. They argued that the residual clause in 4B1.2(a)(2) was unconstitutionally vague because it was almost identical to the clause struck down in Johnson, and that Beckles did not apply to the residual clause of 4B1.2(a)(2) in the pre-Booker mandatory guidelines.

Last week, both the 6th and there 9th held that to apply Johnson to the career offender provisions of the mandatory, pre-Booker Guidelines “would be an extension, not an application, of the rule announced in Johnson.” Because the Supreme Court had not yet decided the issue it left open in Beckles, the appellate courts ruled, the 2255s were untimely and must be dismissed.

This puts people still serving long sentences under mandatory “career offender” Guidelines between the devil and the deep blue sea. The Supreme Court has sent a clear signal in Beckles that it would look at a mandatory “career offender” Johnson case differently, if only the issue were before it.  But one has to get to it in order to be decided. The cases that would qualify are so old (every one pre-2005) that the only way one can be put before a court is through a 2255 motion, and such a motion would not be timely if Johnson did not trigger the one-year clock.

escher180918

No doubt one or more of the cases already decided by the various Circuits may make it to the Supreme Court. To a layman, however, dragging prisoners through an additional four years of incarceration that virtually all commentators – including the Beckles court justices – acknowledge is unconstitutional seems to be a strange and unfair way to run a process.

A Johnson endnote: Meanwhile, the respected Supreme Court website SCOTUSBlog last week blasted the Attorney General’s claim that the recidivism rate for people released under Johnson was “staggering” blasted. Parsing various reports issued within the past year, the author finds Sessions’ claims are without foundation. Recidivism rates are no different for Johnson releasees from other inmates.

Robinson v. United States, Case No. 16-3595 (6th Cir. Sept. 7, 2018)

United States v. Blackstone, Case No. 17-55023 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2018)

SCOTUSBlog: Johnson v. United States: Three years out (Sept. 5, 2018)

– Tom Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Mandatory Guidelines ‘Johnson’ Challenge Neither Fish nor Foul – Update for September 13, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

8TH CIRCUIT SLAMS PROCEDURAL DOOR ON A MANDATORY GUIDELINES JOHNSON CHALLENGE

In 2004, Jeff Russo was convicted of some drug and firearm offenses. The court sentenced him as a Guidelines career offender to 235 months for reasons. After Jeff was sentenced, the Supreme Court declared the Guidelines to be advisory in United States v. Booker, but that didn’t help Jeff, whose Guidelines were considered mandatory when they were imposed.

BettyWhiteACCA180503In 2015, the Supreme Court declared the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. Within a year of Johnson, Jeff filed a 28 USC 2255 motion, claiming district court relied on the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) to conclude that he was a Guidelines career offender. He argued that the residual clause in 4B1.2(a)(2) was unconstitutionally vague because it was almost identical to the clause held unconstitutional in Johnson. Jeff argued the court should vacate his sentence because it was calculated based on an unconstitutionally vague provision in the mandatory guidelines.

After he filed his motion, the Supreme Court held in Beckles v. United States, that the residual clause of 4B1.2(a)(2) in the post-Booker advisory guidelines is not subject to a vagueness challenge. Jeff argued that Beckles did not apply to the old mandatory Guidelines, because they “fix” a defendant’s sentence like the statute in Johnson, and are not flexible like the advisory guidelines ruled on in Beckles.

The district court dismissed Jeff’s motion as untimely, ruling that his motion was timely only if he filed it within a year of the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. The district court said Jeff’s claimed right to be sentenced without the residual clause required “an extension, not an application, of the rule announced in Johnson.” Because the Supreme Court had not yet recognized the right that Jeff asserted, the district court ruled, his 2255 was untimely and should be thrown out.

vaguenes160516Last week, the 8th Circuit agreed with the district court. The Circuit admitted that it is “reasonably debatable whether Johnson’s holding regarding the ACCA extends to the former mandatory guidelines. However, it ruled, “the better view is that Beckles leaves open the question whether the mandatory guidelines are susceptible to vagueness challenges. Because the question remains open, and the answer is reasonably debatable, Johnson did not recognize the right Jeff was asserting, and he thus cannot benefit from the limitations period in Sec. 2255(f)(3).

Russo v. United States, Case No. 17-2424 (8th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Kinder and Gentler Robbery Not ACCA ‘Violent’ – Update for June 25, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

5TH CIRCUIT HOLDS TEXAS SIMPLE ROBBERY IS NOT CRIME OF VIOLENCE

The 5th Circuit last week ruled that a conviction for Texas robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

BettyWhiteACCA180503Latroy Burris, convicted of being a felon-in-possession of a gun, was sentenced under the ACCA for priors of drug distribution, robbery and aggravated robbery. He conceded the drug conviction counted for ACCA purposes, and the 5th Circuit last year said aggravated robbery was a crime of violence. But Latroy argued that Texas robbery under § 29.02(a) of the Texas Penal Code was not a crime of violence.

Texas robbery requires that in the course of committing theft, a person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to another; or intentionally or knowingly threaten or place someone in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

The Circuit agreed with Latroy, finding that Texas law interprets “bodily injury” expansively, encompassing even “relatively minor physical contacts so long as they constitute more than mere offensive touching.” The Circuit said the Supreme Court decision on “physical force,” Curtis Johnson v. United States, suggests that causing “relatively minor physical contacts” does not entail the “violent force” required to make the state robbery offense a “crime of violence.”

Latroy will be resentenced without the ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum.

United States v. Burris, Case No. 17-10478 (5th Cir. June 18, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Mandatory Guideline Career Offenders Get an ACCA Break – Update for June 12, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. 

LISAStatHeader2small
7TH CIRCUIT EXTENDS JOHNSON TO PRE-BOOKER CAREER OFFENDERS

BettyWhiteACCA180503When Johnson v. United States declared the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “crime of violence” to be unconstitutionally vague, prisoners who had ACCA convictions, 18 USC 924(c) convictions and Guidelines “career offender” sentences based on crimes of violence started a land rush to district courts to get resentenced.

But their enthusiasm cooled off when the Supreme Court, in Beckles v. United States, ruled that the ruling did not apply to the several places in the Guidelines that used a “crime of violence” residual clause that read like the one in the ACCA. Beckles held that the vagueness concerns that made the ACCA residual clause unconstitutional were not present where the Sentencing Guidelines were concerned, because the Guidelines were merely advisory: that is, a judge did not have to follow them.

However, some inmates were still serving sentences handed down before the Supreme Court in 2005 declared the Guidelines to be merely advisory in United States v. Booker. Beckles simply did not address their situation.

Last week, the 7th Circuit did so, holding that “under Johnson, the guidelines residual clause is unconstitutionally vague insofar as it determined mandatory sentencing ranges for pre-Booker defendants.”

advisoryguidelines180613In Beckles, the Circuit said, the Supreme Court “took care… to specify that it was addressing only the post-Booker, advisory version of the guidelines.” In fact, the 7th said, “Beckles’ logic for declining to apply the vagueness doctrine rests entirely on the advisory quality of the current guidelines… Beckles reaffirmed that the void-for-vagueness doctrine applies to ‘laws that fix the permissible sentences for criminal offenses.’ As Booker described, the mandatory guidelines did just that. They fixed sentencing ranges from a constitutional perspective… The residual clause of the mandatory guidelines did not merely guide judges’ discretion; rather, it mandated a specific sentencing range and permitted deviation only on narrow, statutorily fixed bases.”

The 7th Circuit concluded that the career offender provisions of “the mandatory guidelines are thus subject to attack on vagueness grounds.”

Cross v. United States, Case No. 17-2282 (7th Cir., June 7, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Supreme Court Taking Another Look at ACCA Predicates – Update for May 3, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. 

LISAStatHeader2small
IT’S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

deja171017It will seem like old times – James, Begay, Chambers, Sykes, Johnson, Mathis, and Beckles – as the Supreme Court has granted review to yet another pair of Armed Career Criminal Act cases last week. These companion cases focus on the question of whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the ACCA. The cases will be decided together during the Supreme Court term beginning in October 2018.

At the same time, we’re watching a trio of cases that are awaiting a decision by SCOTUS on certiorari. The petitions for certiorari have been “relisted” eight times, an astounding number of deferrals by the Court. (A relist is when the Supreme Court schedules a case for a decision on certiorari at the weekly Friday justices’ conference, but then defers decision until the next conference, essentially “relisting” it on the next week’s conference list).

The three cases, Allen v. United States, Gates v. United States, and James v. United States, all ask whether under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. Booker, Johnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States – all of which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes – the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.

BettyWhiteACCA180503Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog last week, noted that the Stitt and Sims cases are being heard “because the government was seeking cert on these cases after losing in big Circuit rulings and because there is a split in the circuits.” Still, he admitted to “growing somewhat annoyed that issues related to the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act continued to be the focal point of so much SCOTUS activity… Many other issues that are so very consequential to so many more cases – e.g., the functioning of reasonableness review or the proper application of Graham and Miller — have been unable to get the Justices’ attention while nearly a dozen ACCA cases have been taken up by SCOTUS in the last decade.”

United States v. Stitt, Case No. 17-765 (cert. granted Apr. 23, 2018)

United States v. Sims, Case No. 17-766 (cert. granted Apr. 23, 2018)

Allen v. United States, Case No. 17-5864 (certiorari decision pending)

Gates v. United States, Case No. 17-6262 (certiorari decision pending)

James v. United States, Case No. 17-6769 (certiorari decision pending)

Sentencing Law and Policy, SCOTUS grants cert on yet another set of ACCA cases, this time to explore when burglary qualifies as “burglary” (Apr. 23, 2018)

SCOTUSBlog.com, Relist Watch (Apr. 27, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Thanks to Mathis, Chances Are It’s No Longer Violent – Update for May 1, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. 

LISAStatHeader2small
8TH CIRCUIT SAYS NORTH DAKOTA BURGLARY TOO BROAD FOR ACCA

Courts are still struggling over the application of Mathis v. United States, the 2016 case that changed the way state statutes are interpreted for imposing Armed Career Criminal Act sentences. Mathis says that in determining whether a statute can be divided into crimes that qualify for ACCA treatment and crimes that are too broad for ACCA treatment, you first read the plain text, then see whether the separate offenses have different punishments, then look at state court decisions in the issue, and then check out state jury instructions. If none of that works, chances are it may still not count for an ACCA punishment…

mathis180501That’s what the 8th Circuit ran into last week with defendant Jon Kinney. He had a prior North Dakota burglary conviction of a “building or occupied structure” that helped qualify him for an ACCA sentence. But the state statute provided that an occupied structure could include a vehicle, and vehicle burglary falls beyond the kind of generic burglary that counts against the ACCA.

The Circuit looked at the statute, state court decisions and jury instructions, but could not tell whether “building or occupied structure” described two elements or just two means of committing the crime. Frustrated, the court gave just a “peek” at the record of Jon’s prior conviction “for the sole and limited purpose of determining whether the listed items are elements of the offense.”

It turned out that each of Jon’s charges just accused him of burgling “a building or occupied structure.” The fact that his indictments listed both, the Court held, was “as clear an indication as any that each alternative is only a possible means of commission, not an element that the prosecutor must prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, the Circuit held, Jon’s prior North Dakota convictions can’t count as predicates for the ACCA.

United States v. Kinney, Case No. 16-3764 (8th Cir. Apr. 23, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Another Case of the “Shorts” – Update for April 19, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.  Today, we’re doing clean-up with a number of short takes from our most recent newsletter to inmates.

LISAStatHeader2small
8TH CIRCUIT RULES MISSOURI 2ND DEGREE BURGLARY DOES NOT COUNT FOR ACCA

burglary160502Chuck Naylor pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court found that four of his prior Missouri 2nd-degree burglary convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. On appeal, the 8th Circuit agreed, because it was bound by United States v. Sykes.

But in an April 5 rehearing en banc, the Circuit changed its mind, holding that “convictions under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170 (1979) do not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. To the extent Sykes concluded otherwise, it is overruled.”

The decision suggests that a lot of people doing ACCA time because of the Sykes decision will be visiting their local district courts soon with 28 USC 2241 petitions.

United States v. Naylor, Case No. 16-2047 (8th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018)

LISAStatHeader2small

FDA SEEKING COMMENT ON MARIJUANA DRUG SCHEDULE

Mike, an alert reader, brought to our attention that the FDA and Trump Administration have asked the public to comment on the “abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of” marijuana and its derivatives. Mike noted that “there are medical benefits, jobs to be had, taxes to be made to go to education, a sure way to help get the people off opioids, not to mention a drop in schedule would help all those incarcerated with mandatory mins.”

Any interested person can comment on the proposal online.

Food and Drug Administration, Case No. FDA-2018-N-1072), International Drug Scheduling; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Cannabis Plant… Request for Comments

LISAStatHeader2small

CALLING JUDGE POSNER

paging180419We wrote about Judge Posner’s new pro se assistance organization a few weeks ago, and since then, we’ve heard from a number of people wanting contact information. We still do not have an address, but the editor at Litigation Daily provided us with the organization’s web address:

http://www.justice-for-pro-ses.org
LISAStatHeader2small

THE AUSA, NOT THE COURT, PULLS 5K1.1 STRINGS

When a federal defendant assists the authorities prior to his or her being sentenced, the government returns the favor by filing a motion with the sentencing court under Sec. 5K1.1 of the Guidelines, asking for a sentence cut. Sec. 5K1.1 is about the only way a defendant can get a substantial reduction in sentence (the cut averages about 52%), and only the government can make the motion.

An unnamed defendant who helped out the government received his USSG Sec. 5K1.1 motion at sentencing, but the Feds only recommended dropping his 235-293 sentencing range to 135-168 months. That was a nice reduction, but was still above his 120-month statutory minimum sentence. The sentencing judge granted the 5K1.1, but departed downward to 80 months. The government thought that was too much, and appealed.

toughluck180419Last week, the 5th Circuit reversed, holding that the law is clear a court cannot impose a sentence below a statutory minimum for substantial assistance unless the government, in its 5K1.1, specifically moves to go below the minimum. The district court knew this, but justified its sentencing decision by citing its authority “to review a prosecutor’s refusal to file a substantial-assistance motion and to grant a remedy if they find the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive.” The district court said its bigger reduction was warranted because the government did not take into account the lower Guidelines sentencing range the district court had applied, and overlooked other grounds, such as the fact that Appellee voluntarily withdrew from the conspiracy early on, encouraging others in the conspiracy to quit, volunteering at a local church, and maintaining a job. The district judge said he “disagrees with the concept of mandatory minimum sentencing by which members of the legislature and the executive who do not see the human beings before the Court nevertheless impose on the judiciary arbitrary minimum sentences.”

Tough, the Circuit said. Regardless of the district court’s own policy views about the use of mandatory minimum sentences, the law in this area is clear. And we must faithfully apply it. A motion by the government was required for the district court to depart below the minimum term of imprisonment established by Congress for the drug offense Appellee committed. Thus, it was error for the district court to sua sponte depart from the minimum.”

United States v. Sealed Appellee, Case No. 17-50451 (5th Cir. Apr. 10, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small