Tag Archives: career offender

F.R.Crim.P. 36: There’s Life in the Old Carcass – Update for July 2, 2019

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.

MAYBE RULE 36 IS NOT TOOTHLESS AFTER ALL

Everyone knows that Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to move to correct a clerical error in the criminal case judgment. Over the years, I have found it useful mainly to correct mistakes in the defendant’s name, which invariably become part of the BOP record. Beyond that, we all are aware that Rule 36 cannot correct mistakes of fact or law, and for sure cannot lead to a reduced sentencing.

error161101Last week, the 4th Circuit suggested that maybe we have it wrong. Lamont Vanderhorst’s district court denied his Rule 36 motion to correct a clerical error in his Presentence Report. The PSR characterized one of his state convictions as “conspiracy to sell and deliver cocaine.” In fact, the conviction was “conspiracy to traffick [sic] cocaine by transportation.”

As a result of the clerical error, the district court wrongly sentenced Lamont as a career offender.

The district court denied the motion, holding that Rule 36 cannot serve as a means of pursuing resentencing. The Circuit disagreed, holding that “Rule 36 may serve as an appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain resentencing when a clerical error likely resulted in the imposition of a longer sentence than would have been imposed absent the error.” The 4th said that “when an error is purely a ‘clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, “the policy of finality is trumped and a court is authorized to correct the error at any time.”

Unfortunately, Lamont had four other priors that supported his career offender designation, so he was denied relief anyway. But the principle makes Rule 36 potentially a powerful gadget in the collateral-relief toolbox.

United States v. Vanderhorst, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18886 (4th Cir. June 25, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission Cannot Add to Drug Offense Definition, 6th Circuit Says – Update for June 10, 2019

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.

NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL

fishfowl170803Everyone who paid attention in high school government class knows there are three branches of the federal government, the legislative (Congress), the executive (President and the agencies), and the judicial.

And then there’s the United States Sentencing Commission. It is part of the judicial branch, but it is part legislative, too, answering to Congress (which has the right to pass on any amendments, and veto those of which it disapproves). Legal scholars might say it’s neither fish nor fowl.

In 2017, Jim Harvey pled guilty to felon-in-possession of a firearm. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant convicted of a 18 USC 922(g)(1) offense starts with a base offense level of 14, but that level increases to 20 under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4) or (6) if he or she has a prior conviction for a “controlled substance offense.” At sentencing, the district court decided that Jim’s 17-year-old Tennessee conviction for selling or delivering cocaine was a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines.

Jim objected because the Tennessee statute criminalized both sale and delivery of cocaine. Under state law, “delivery” of drugs includes the “attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance.” Jim argued that the prior conviction was not a controlled substance offense because the Guidelines’ definition of “controlled substance offense” does not include “attempt” crimes.

Jim was right that the Guidelines themselves do not include “attempt” offenses. However, each of the Guidelines comes with its own handy commentary and application notes, helpful annotations by the Sentencing Commission to aid users in what it considers the “proper” way to apply each Guideline. The commentary at the end of USSG § 4B1.2(b), which (among other things) defines a controlled substance offense for Guidelines purposes, directs that the definition of controlled substance offense in the text necessarily includes ‘the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit such offenses.’

robbank190610Not so, Jim argued. The Guidelines text itself says nothing about attempt, and the Sentencing Commission, he complained, has no power to add attempt crimes to the list of offenses in § 4B1.2(b) through its own commentary. It would be like West Publishing adding a note after the bank robbery statute saying that bank robbery includes the offense of shaking a few quarters out of your kid’s piggy bank for bus fare.

Last Thursday, the 6th Circuit agreed with Jim.

The Guidelines commentary, the Court said, “never passes through the gauntlets of congressional review or notice and comment. That is generally not a problem, the Supreme Court tells us, because such commentary has no independent legal force — it serves only to interpret the Guidelines’ text, not to replace or modify it. Courts need not accept an interpretation that is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with” the corresponding guideline.

bootstrappingBut the problem comes where the commentary does more than just interpret, but instead tries to bootstrap the Guideline into saying something more than what Congress approved. In this case, the commentary in question does not “interpret,” but rather supplements. The Commission was perfectly capable of adding “attempt” to the Guideline itself. Clearly, the 6th Circuit noted, the “Commission knows how to include attempt crimes when it wants to — in subsection (a) of the same guideline, for example, the Commission defines “crime of violence” as including offenses that have “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”

To make attempt crimes a part of 4B1.2(b), the Commission did not interpret a term in the guideline itself, but instead used Application Note 1 to add an offense not listed in the Guideline. Application notes, the Court held, are to be “interpretations of, not additions to, the Guidelines themselves.” If that were not so, the institutional constraints that make the Guidelines constitutional in the first place — congressional review and notice and comment — would lose their meaning.

Jim’s case was remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Havis, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17042 (6th Cir. June 6, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Dance With The Girl Who Brung You – Update for April 30, 2019

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.

GOVERNMENT DENIED A MULLIGAN IN § 2255 ARGUMENT

A crusty old judge I once knew liked to warn attorneys they had to “dance with the girl who brung” them. That is, if they made a claim in their opening statement, they had to stick with that claim, and not try to slip in a new theory when the old one started looking weak.

mulligan190430The 4th Circuit told the government the same thing last week. Antwan Winbush filed a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that argued his attorney had been ineffective at his sentencing. Specifically, the court attributed two prior drug convictions to Antwan, making him a “career offender” under the Sentencing Guidelines, and exposing him to a dramatically potential higher sentencing range. Antwan arued his lawyer should have noticed that one of the two priors was inapplicable.

The government admitted Antwan was right about one of the drug prior convictions not counting for “career offender” (because the conduct it addressed was drug possession, not drug trafficking). That did not matter, the government said, because Antwan was not prejudiced. It seems Antwan also had a prior conviction for an Ohio robbery, and that prior offense would have counted to make him a Guidelines “career offender” even without the defective prior drug conviction.

Antwan protested that neither the U.S. Attorney nor the court identified the robbery conviction as a “career offender” qualifier at sentencing. Instead, both relied only on the two prior drug convictions.

The district court said it did not matter which convictions the government brought to the dance back at sentencing, because it was free to watusi with the heretofore-unidentified robbery conviction now. But last week, the 4th Circuit disagreed.

The Circuit, noting that Antwan’s presentence report “did not designate his robbery conviction as a predicate conviction for the career offender designation,” ruled that as a result, Antwan “was given no notice at sentencing that his robbery conviction could be utilized as a predicate conviction for a career offender enhancement.”

uglygirl190430The government “has already been given one full and fair opportunity to offer whatever support for the career offender enhancement it could assemble,” the Court held. Because the government did not identify the robbery as a conviction on which it intended to rely to support a Guidelines “career offender” enhancement at sentencing, it cannot decide to do so later when it finds it convenient, because one of the convictions it did rely on to support the career offender designation ends up not counting.

“To hold otherwise,” the 4th ruled, “would be to allow the government to change its position regarding which convictions support the enhancement now that one of its original choices cannot do the job. Worse yet, allowing the government to change positions for the first time on collateral review would unfairly deprive the defendant of an adequate opportunity to respond to predicate offense designations, especially given the fact that a defendant has the burden of proof at the 2255 stage but no right to counsel.”

You dance with the girl who brung you.

United States v. Winbush, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11853 (4th Cir. Apr. 23, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Some of It’s Violent, Some of It’s Not – Update for February 5, 2019

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.

MIXED WEEK FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE

Defendants arguing that prior state convictions were not crimes of violence enjoyed mixed results last week.

violent160620A 10th Circuit panel ruled in United States v. Bong that robbery under Kansas law can be accomplished with minimal force that falls short of the “violent force” required under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause. What’s more, Kansas aggravated robbery – a robbery committed by someone armed with a dangerous weapon or who inflicts bodily harm during course of a robbery – is not violent, either. Merely being “armed” with a weapon during the course of a robbery, the court said, is not sufficient to render the state offense a “violent crime” for ACCA purposes.

Things did not go so well in the 2nd Circuit. There, the court held in United States v. Thrower that 3rd degree robbery under N.Y. Penal Law 160.05 is a crime of violence for ACCA purposes. The crime requires “forcible stealing,” which is defined as common to every degree of robbery in New York State, requires use or threat of the immediate use of physical force sufficient to prevent or overcome victim resistance. “By its plain language,” the Circuit said, “the New York robbery statute matches the Armed Career Criminal Act.” The holding includes not just 3rd degree robbery, but by necessity all levels of New York robbery.

A 9th Circuit panel, however, held in United States v. Vederoff that 2nd degree assault under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.36.021(1) is overbroad when compared to the generic definition of aggravated assault, because the statute encompasses assault with intent to commit a felony. Because Washington’s 2nd-degree assault statute is indivisible, the panel could not apply the modified categorical approach, and therefore concluded that Washington second-degree assault does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the enumerated clause of USSG 4B1.2. For the same reason, the panel held, 2nd-degree murder under Washington Code 9A.32.050 is overbroad because the statute covers felony murder. The panel found the statute indivisible, and therefore concluded 2nd-degree murder is not a “crime of violence” under the enumerated clause of USSG 4B1.2.

The 8th Circuit ruled in Mora-Higuera v, United States that a defendant’s 2255 motion, asserting a due process right to be sentenced without reference to the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) under the mandatory guidelines, was not dictated by Johnson v. United States, because it is “reasonably debatable whether Johnson’s holding regarding the ACCA extends to the former mandatory guidelines.” Thus, the defendant was not able to challenge his mandatory Guidelines career offender sentence on the grounds one of the prior crimes of violence was invalidated by Johnson.

vaguenes160516Finally, the 10th Circuit agreed in United States v. Pullen that “the Supreme Court has never recognized a void for vagueness challenge to the Guidelines and so Johnson neither creates a new rule applicable to the Guidelines nor dictates that any provision of the Guidelines is subject to a void for vagueness challenge.”

United States v. Bong, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2798 (10th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)

United States v. Thrower, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3145 (2nd Cir. Jan. 31, 2019)

United States v. Vederoff, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3314 (9th Cir., Feb. 1, 2019)

Mora-Higuera v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3139 (8th Cir. Jan 31, 2019)

United States v. Pullen, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2937 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Fair Sentencing Act Retroactivity Benefits Are Broad – Update for January 31, 2019

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.

FAIR SENTENCING ACT RETROACTIVITY HELPING CAREER OFFENDERS, TOO

Section 404 of the First Step Act, which authorizes the retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act to people sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before its enactment, is already opening the jailhouse door for some inmates.

... had nothing on crack hysteria.
… had nothing on crack hysteria.

Prior to 2010, crack cocaine was treated by the law with a level of hysteria that made “reefer madness” seem rational. A defendant caught with 10 grams of crack was treated as though he had a kilo of powder cocaine. The Fair Sentencing Act, passed in 2010, reduced this 100:1 ratio of crack to powder to 18:1, a ratio still untethered to reality but the best the bill’s sponsors could negotiate with some Senate holdouts. Still, the Act meant that a defendant had to be caught with 28 grams for a mandatory minimum five years in prison rather than a mere 5 grams.

The other concession the bill’s sponsors had to make in order to ensure the measure’s passage was to agree that the Act would be prospective only, that is, apply only to people sentenced after the measure was enacted. It took eight years for another bill, this one the First Step Act, to do what should have been done in 2010, and that is to treat the guy sentenced on August 1, 2010, the same as the guy sentenced two days later.

The Sentencing Commission has lowered the drug guidelines twice since 2010, and each time made the change retroactive. However, retroactivity did not help guys who had mandatory minimum sentences under 21 USC § 841(b)(1) that would no longer be as onerous if the Act had passed. Likewise, a lot of defendants had had two qualifying prior cases, and were thus considered career offenders under the Guidelines. Career offenders have been deemed by the courts to not have been sentenced under the drug quantity guidelines, and thus the Sentencing Commission’s changes to those guidelines did not benefit them.

But now, a weird effect of the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act is giving hope to guys who sentenced as Guidelines career offenders in crack cases.

Logan's going to the street...
Logan’s going to the street…

Logan Tucker was convicted in 2001 for a crack offense. His original 262-month sentence was driven not by a statutory mandatory minimum, but rather by the Guidelines career-offender provision. Although Logan’s sentence for a crack offense was driven by the Guidelines rather than a statutory mandatory minimum provision, he was not previously eligible for a 2-level reduced sentence due to retroactive Guideline changes because of his career offender status.

But last week, Logan got his break. His sentencing judge ruled that Logan was originally sentenced for a crack offense, and the Fair Sentencing Act lowered the statutory maximum he would have faced. The career offender guidelines, strangely enough, are set under USSG § 4B1.1 by the statutory maximum sentence a defendant faces. Logan’s new lower statutory maximum effectively lowed his career offender guideline.

Logan’s judge imposed a reduced sentence of 188 months, the low end of the new guidelines range, and let him walk out of the courtroom a free man (or as free as supervised release lets one be). Notably, the government in this case conceded that the First Step Act authorized the reduced sentence (although, being prosecutors to the end, the AUSAs urged the court to exercise its discretion not to reduce Logan’s original sentence).

Order, United States v. Logan, Case No. 3:00-cr-00246 (S.D. Iowa, Jan. 23)

– Thomas L. Root

Know Your Guns: Supreme Court to Review Mens Rea of Felon-In-Possession – Update for January 14, 2019

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.

SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW FELON-IN-POSSESSION STATUTE

gun160718The felon-in-possession statute, 18 USC 922(g)(1), makes it illegal for a convicted felon to possess a gun or ammo. But the statute does not specify a punishment. Instead, 18 USC 924(a)(2) provides the 10-year maximum for anyone who knowingly violates the F-I-P statute.

But what do you have to know? Do you have to know you’re breaking the law? Know that you are a convicted felon, or that what you possess is really a gun? Or just know that whatever it is, you possess it?

The Supreme Court granted review to a case that explores the mens rea requirement for the F-I-P statute a case which has implications for thousands of people convicted of being felons-in-possession, as well for the general issue of mens rea requirements for federal criminal statutes. The implications for people serving time for such convictions could be significant.

burglthree160124Certiorari was also granted in a case asking whether generic burglary requires proof that a defendant intended to commit a crime at the time of unlawful entry or whether it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime while “remaining in” the building or structure. Two circuits hold the defendant has to intend to commit a crime as he or she enters. Four hold that it’s burglary even if a defendant can enter the structure with a pure heart, and only later decides to commit a crime.

Because burglary is a crime of violence offense for both the Armed Career Criminal Act conviction and the Guidelines career offender label, the holding could be important for a lot of people now doing time.

It is unclear whether the cases will be decided by June or will go into the the next term starting in October 2019.

Quarles v. United States, Case No. 17-778 (certiorari granted Jan. 11, 2019) 

Rehaif v. United States, Case No. 17-9560 (certiorari granted Jan. 11, 20190

– Thomas L. Root

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

Pay Your Money and Take Your Chance on Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Sentence – Update for October 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

VACATED STATE CONVICTION DOES NOT LEAD TO LOWER RULE 11(c)(1)(C) SENTENCE

Brian Hoskins, a man with two prior felony drug convictions, made a deal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to plead to 112 months on a federal drug trafficking case. A so-called (c)(1)(C) plea specifies a precise sentence which the court may accept or reject, but not change. The (c)(1)(C) deal brought Brian’s sentence in way below what his Sentencing Guidelines “career offender” status would have gotten him.

jailfree140410But after sentencing, Brian was able to get his Vermont drug felony conviction – one of the two prior convictions that qualified him as a “career offender” – set aside because his state lawyer had screwed up the plea. All of a sudden, he no longer qualified as a career offender, dramatically lowering his sentencing range. His  112-month plea no longer looked like such a good deal.

Brian filed a 28 USC 2255 motion, arguing that his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea should be set aside. The district court agreed, holding that his “now-vacated state conviction clearly led to a significant enhancement of his sentence.” The district judge cut Brian’s sentence to 86 months, which Brian has now completed.

Not so fast, Brian. Last week, the 2nd Circuit upheld a government appeal of the 2255 grant. Noting that a non-constitutional error – like the state court conviction that had now gone away – can be recognized on a 2255 motion only if “the claimed error constituted ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.’”

Here, the Circuit said, there was no miscarriage. Brian’s 112-month deal fell within his non-career offender sentencing range of 100-125 months. What’s more, the 2nd said, “Sec. 2255 does not encompass all claimed errors in conviction and sentencing.” Id. at 185. Rather, those instances where an error in conviction or sentencing rise to the level to be a cognizable basis for a collateral attack are reserved for when the “error of fact or law is of the fundamental character that renders the entire proceeding irregular and invalid… A “later development” that “did not affect the lawfulness of the judgment itself—then or now,” is not enough to vacate the sentence imposed.

The appellate court said Brian’s plea deal agreed he was a career offender, but applied a sentencing range well below it. The deal also let Brian avoid a superseding indictment with enhanced mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. “Together, these circumstances show that, even with a career offender enhancement applied to calculate Hoskins’s Guidelines range at 155 to 181 months, in securing agreement to a sentence of 112 months, Hoskins left the bargaining table with a deal that secured him real benefit, hardly indicating a a miscarriage of justice.”

welcomeback181003Second, because the Guidelines are advisory, the district court necessarily had to make an individualized determination that the 112-month sentence was right for Brian. The district court obviously did so, the 2nd Circuit said, and the fact the 112-month deal was in the middle of his non-career offender range made it clear Brian’s sentence was no miscarriage of justice.

The 2255 grant was reversed, and Brian will have to return to prison.

United States v. Hoskins, Case No. 17-70-cr (2nd Cir. Sept. 26, 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

“Sort of Violent” Is Kind of Like “Sort of Pregnant” – Update for September 11, 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

HOBBS ACT ROBBERY ONLY SORT OF VIOLENT

In what may to some seem like hair-splitting, the 6th Circuit last week held that a Hobbs Act robbery under 18 USC 1951 is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 USC 924(c), but it is not a crime of violence for purposes of Guidelines 4B1.2 “career offender” status.

violence180508Desmond Camp robbed a dollar store at gunpoint. Because he had a prior 924(c) conviction, he faced a 300-month (25 year) mandatory minimum on the gun charge. But on top of that, Des had two priors that qualified as crimes of violence under Chapter 4B of the Guidelines. With the Hobbs Act robbery in his current case as a third violent offense, Des got 72 month stacked on top of the 300 months.

Last week, the 6th Circuit upheld the 924(c) conviction, joining every other circuit in America in holding that a Hobbs Act robbery was a crime of violence under that statute. However, the appeals court ruled, the Guidelines “career offender” section is different. The Circuit said that “an offense is a crime of violence under that clause if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. The plain text of the Hobbs Act criminalizes robbery accomplished by using or threatening force against “person or property.” Though this may be sufficient under 924(c), it is not under the Guidelines. Given their definitional differences, “[t]here is nothing incongruous about holding that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 USC 924(c), which includes force against a person or property, but not for purposes of USSG 4B1.2(a)(1), which is limited to force against a person.” Therefore, Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the Guidelines’ use-of-force clause.

kindofpregnant180911So Hobbs Act robbery is only kind of violent.

Robbery is listed in the Guidelines as a crime that by definition is a crime of violence. But that, the Circuit said, does not matter. Recognizing that “most modern statutes limit robbery to force or threats against a person,” the court held that because Hobbs Act robbery encompassed “mere threats to property,” it was not categorically ‘robbery’ as used in the Guideline.

Not that all of this helps Desmond that much. On resentencing, he will still get somewhere between 300 and 372 months.

United States v. Camp, Case No. 17-1879 (6th Cir. Sept. 7, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small