We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
RUMOR CONTROL 101: WHAT HAPPENS ON FEBRUARY 1? (HINT: NOTHING)
My inbox has been flooded in the last few weeks with people wondering what all will happen today, Thursday, February 1st. One said changes in the gun laws will go into effect. Another heard that the meth laws will change. Another explained that all criminal history points from prior state convictions will be dropped from Guidelines criminal history. A fourth heard that acquitted conduct will be banned for sentencing purposes.
Yesterday, a prisoner complained that people were saying that effective today, FSA credits could be used by everyone, not just low- and minimum- recidivism level inmates. At least this last guy recognized that the rumor was bullshit on stilts, and responded with appropriate disgust.
The plain and sad fact is that NONE OF THESE RUMORS IS TRUE. NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZIP.
Congress is not changing the federal firearms statutes this year. With methamphetamine and fentanyl flowing across the border being a hot campaign issue, no one’s changing those laws, either. Congress can’t even approve a federal budget or aid to Ukraine and Israel, or a plan to stop the border crisis. Passing legislation that benefits a portion of the 160,000 federal prisoners is not on anyone’s radar.
True, the Sentencing Commission is considering what – if anything – to do with acquitted conduct, but any change in the Guidelines is not likely to be retroactive and is 10 months away at least. And the Supremes may cause real upheaval in the federal gun laws when Rahimi is decided in the next five months.
But nothing will happen today.
However, tomorrow… On February 2, the Time Reduction Fairy will emerge from her den. If she sees her shadow, we’re in for another year of no criminal justice reform. The smart money, unfortunately, is that February 2 is going to be sunny.
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
GUN AND RE-GUN
The Sentencing Commission does not have enough members for a quorum, so it cannot adopt any Guidelines changes. It still has a busy staff, however, and keeps grinding out studies.
At the end of June, the Commission issued a study of about 3,500 federal firearms offenders, reporting that
• Gun offenders commit new crimes at a higher rate than non-gun offenders, with 68% being arrested for a new crime during the eight years following release, compared to 46% of non-gun offenders, with higher percentages in every age and criminal history group;
• Gun defendants re-offend more quickly than non-gun defendants. The median time from release to the first new crime was 17 months, compared to 22 months for non-gun people; and
• More gun offenders were rearrested for serious crimes than non-gun offenders, with assault was the most serious new charge for 29%, followed by drug trafficking (14%) and public order crimes (12%). Of the non-gun offenders, assault was the most common new charge for 22%, followed by 19% for public order crimes and 11% for drug trafficking;
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
SUPREMES SAY COURT CAN CONSIDER MANDATORY GUN SENTENCE WHEN SENTENCING ON UNDERLYING CRIME
Outside of TV cop shows, no one likes drug dealers or violent criminals waving firearms around, which is probably why no crime this side of kiddie porn is easier to demagogue than laws that slam gun-toting criminals.
Take 18 USC 924(c), which sets penalties for criminals who use, carry or possess a gun “during and in relation to” a crime of violence or drug-trafficking offense. A defendant convicted of a 924(c) offense must get a mandatory sentence of at least 5 years (with increased penalties if the perp “brandished” it or fired it, and whopping increases if, for example, it was fully automatic). What’s even more impressive, the statute raises the mandatory minimum to 25 years for the second offense. Oh yeah, and all 924(c) penalties must be consecutive to any other sentence.
Watch how the math works: On Monday, Bart Badguy robs a convenience store with a .44 Klutzman stuck in his waistband, and makes off with a bag of Doritos. Realizing later that he has nothing to dip it in, he robs another convenience store the next day, the same revolver displayed under his belt, and grabs some French onion dip. The federal sentencing guidelines set him at 63-78 months for the two robberies, and the court sentences Bart at the bottom (understanding what hunger can do to a man).
But Paula Prosecutor is a canny lawyer, and she thus had the foresight to get Bart indicted for two 924(c) counts along with the two robberies. The first 924(c) count adds 60 months to the 63 months the district court imposed for the robberies. The second 924(c) count – arising from Bart’s going back for the dip – adds 300 months to the robberies and the first 924(c) conviction. Total sentence: 403 months (35¼ years) for chips and dip.
No one would argue against punishing crimes of violence involving guns more harshly than other offenses. Shooting legend Elmer Keith is credited with observing that one should never bring a knife to a gunfight, and the sentiment – that people carrying guns are likely to use them – undergirds 924(c).
But the statute is inflexible, and the government has had its fun with it as a result. While Congress probably meant that a second 924(c) conviction – carrying a 25-year mandatory minimum – had to follow a prior 924(c) conviction, prosecutors years ago sold the Supreme Court that the statute did not say there had to be an intervening conviction. In Deal v. United States, a 1994 decision, the Supreme Court held that a drug-addled bank robber who held up six banks in a 3-month period – carrying a gun for all of them – had to get a 105-year sentence.
Yesterday, the government – which had lived by the sword – died by the sword.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 8th Circuit, holding that a sentencing court may consider the length of a mandatory consecutive sentence when setting the length of an underlying sentence.
In Dean v. United States, the defendant was charged with committing two robberies with a gun. The robberies carried a guidelines sentence of 84 to 105 months. One of the two 924(c) counts carried a mandatory 5 years, and the second carried a mandatory 25 years. Both sentences had to be consecutive to the underlying sentence and each other.
So Levon Dean got to sentencing knowing that he had a minimum 360 months coming. His lawyer argued that it was more than enough, and the judge hardly needed to pile on another 84 months for the underlying offense. While the district court, the judge said he was not allowed to adjust the sentence of the underlying robbery to zero to account for the two consecutive gun sentences. Levon got 400 months.
The 8th Circuit agreed with the government that the underlying offense had to be sentenced as though the 924(c) counts were not there, and then the consecutive sentences had to be stacked on like pancakes. Anything else, the Justice Department argued, would thwart the will of Congress.
How convenient for the government that the will of Congress becomes a crucial consideration in Dean, while it was utterly irrelevant 24 years ago in Deal! Yesterday, however, the Supreme Court found it not so convenient, holding that while adjusting the underlying offense guidelines to zero might negate the will of Congress, that did not matter. The plain text of the statute was clear, and the plain text governs:
The Government speaks of Congress’s intent to prevent district courts from bottoming out sentences for predicate 924(c) offenses whenever they think a mandatory minimum under 924(c) is already punishment enough. But no such intent finds expression in the language of 924(c). That language simply requires any mandatory minimum under 924(c) to be imposed “in addition to” the sentence for the predicate offense, and to run consecutively to that sentence. Nothing in those requirements prevents a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum under 924(c) when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense.
The government argued that Congress’s intent that the underlying offense be sentenced without regard to the 924(c) count could be inferred from the statute’s silence. But in another consecutive-sentencing statute for identity theft, Congress included specific language limiting the district court’s ability to adjust the underlying sentence.
The Supremes ruled that because “Congress has shown that it knows how to direct sentencing practices in express terms,” but did not in 924(c), a sentencing court may impose a sentence on the underlying offense of one day, in order to make the overall sentence consistent with what the court considers appropriate under 18 USC 3553 (the sentencing statute). The Court said, “we ordinarily resist reading words or elements into a statute that do not appear on its face.”
Dean will go back to court for resentencing, where he will receive 30 years and a day.
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 offer a few kibbles of legal interest that have been cluttering our dog pound for the last few days…
US ATTORNEYS TO FOCUS ON VIOLENT CRIME, WHICH INCLUDES DRUG TRAFFICKING
There is some indication that the Trump Administration may be expanding violent crime enforcement activities, a category which Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions believes must include gun and drug offenses. In keeping with the President’s fixation on violent crime, Sessions last week ordered United States Attorneys to work with with local and state prosecutors “to investigate, prosecute and deter the most violent offenders.”
Sessions’ directive said, “federal prosecutors should coordinate with state and local counterparts to identify the venue (federal or state) that best ensures an immediate and appropriate penalty for these violent offenders.”
Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions
In keeping with the new emphasis on violent crime, Sessions has appointed Steve Cook, chief of the Criminal Division for the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and one of last year’s most vocal opponents of sentencing reform, as associate deputy attorney general with a mandate to focus on violent crime. Cook told a newspaper last year, “When you put criminals in jail, crime goes down. That’s what incapacitation is designed to do, and it works.” He called the idea that most offenders in federal prisons are nonviolent drug pushers is a myth.
Some critics the emphasis on violent crime as federal encroachment. “An expanded federal criminal justice agenda comprised of federal-state-local task forces targeting violent offenses and coupled with tougher federal sentences would be a substantial change in practice and a step in the wrong direction,” says Ryan King, senior fellow at the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
Tougher sentences could quickly reverse declines in BOP inmate population, especially in higher-level joints. According to a new Prison Policy Initiative report, 50% of the 189,000 federal prison inmates were convicted of drug offenses. Violent-crime convictions account for just 7% of the federal total.
The current-year book is available online as an interactive book that defies downloading. It contains a wealth of sentencing stats broken down in over 100 tables (as well as sentencing date by federal district, another 97 tables).
Slogging through the Sourcebook takes awhile, but it yields a lot of fascinating data. Of special interest:
• the number of cases ending with guilty pleas remained steady at 97%
• 14% of people challenging their sentences on direct appeal won reversal, but only 5% ended up with a better sentence.
• two out of three resentencings resulted from the 2-level reduction for drug offenses, Rule 35(b) reductions for helping the government were 11% of resentencings, and 10% were from wins on 2255 motions.
• continuing the pathetic performance on compassionate release, the courts granted a total of 51 inmates sentence reduction (a mere 0.4% of all resentencings).
• in new sentencings last year, 49% were within the Guidelines range, a two-percent increase over last year. Only 2% of sentences were above the range, while 19% were below the range for reasons other than government motion. About 20% of sentences were reduced because the defendant helped the government, and another 9% were cut for early disposition of an immigration case.
Like 97% of other federal defendants, Jim Kirkland made a deal with the government to plead guilty. In exchange, the government agreed to recommend the bottom of the guidelines range at sentencing.
But when Jim stood in front of the judge, the government went crazy on him, not just failing to recommend the bottom, but instead pushing for the very top, and bringing in live testimony of how terrible a few of his prior state crimes had been. The probation officer recommended the dead center of the sentencing range, and the judge gave it to him, saying that was what he had had in mind all along.
Jim’s sentencing lawyer must have been snoring too loudly to object, but on appeal, Jim raised the government’s plea breach. The AUSA admitted it was a plain breach, but argued the error did not affect Jim’s substantial rights or seriously affect “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” two of the standard Jim had to meet before proving F.R.Crim.P. 52(b) “plain error.” The government’s rationale was that the district judge said he said the 300-month midpoint sentence “frankly, happens to coincide with my own independent decision,” and that was sufficient evidence that the court would have imposed the same exact sentence even if the AUSA had recommended the bottom of the guidelines.
Last week, the 5th Circuit agreed with Jim. Clearly unhappy at the government’s breach of its promise, the Court said “the government did not merely recommend a high-end sentence but also strongly argued and presented testimony in support of that recommendation, recounting in great detail the graphic and… explicit facts involved in Kirkland’s offense of conviction and a prior offense and emphasizing his criminal history and his violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The testimony and argument by the Government filled more than nine pages of the sentencing transcript. Therefore, the district court may have been influenced not only by the Government’s recommendation, but also by Government’s passionate emphasis of aggravating factors in support of that recommendation, which brought public safety concerns to the forefront.”
When the government breaches a plea agreement, a defendant may either ask the court to order specific performance of the plea agreement and resentencing before a different judge, or withdrawal of the guilty plea. Jim asked for and got resentencing before a new judge.
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
The shorthand is misleading, because literally, 18 USC 922 nowhere uses the word “felony.” But it does talk about a lot of other things. You can commit the offense colloquially called felon-in-possession if you own a firearm or ammunition that has traveled in interstate commerce after (1) being convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison; (2) being under indictment for such a crime; (3) being convicted of any misdemeanor involving domestic violence; (4) being a fugitive from justice; (5) being a drug abuser; (6) being under a civil protection order; (7) being an illegal alien; (8) being dishonorably discharged from the armed forces; or (9) having renounced your citizenship.
The statute’s a hot mess, and its byzantine requirements would almost be laughable if the penalty – up to 10 years in prison – were not so serious. We just talked to a Navy veteran the other day who wanted to expunge a domestic violence misdemeanor he had gotten while on leave 22 years ago. He was shocked when we told him that he was committing a 10-year federal felony by owning the shotgun he hunted deer with every year.
Today’s case isn’t about the flaws in the statute, however, but rather the flaws in the system. Dasean Taylor was very much a felon-in-possession. In fact, he must have caught the authorities’ attention as a bona fide bad guy, because law enforcement sent an informant to buy guns from Dasean on three separate occasions.
Not a business license…
Catching Desean the first time he sold a gun would have been plenty to hang him as a felon-in-possession. But the Sentencing Guidelines include an arsenal of enhancements that can jack up the sentencing range of a felon-in-possession, and the government pretty clearly wanted Dasean’s hide.
Dasean’s case centered around a 4-level enhancement for trafficking in firearms. The enhancement would apply to Desean if he sold two or more guns, and knew or had reason to know possession of the guns by the buyer was illegal or the buyer was going to use the guns illegally.
To be sure they could hammer Dasean, the authorities had their undercover buyer tell Dasean he was going to file the serial numbers off one of the guns. One of other guns sold was a sawed-off shotgun, illegal to own unless it was registered under 26 USC 5841. The district court held that the sale of those two guns satisfied the trafficking enhancement.
An unfortunate effect of the adoption of the federal sentencing guidelines was to institutionalize the practice of sentence manipulation. The drug guidelines increased according to the weight of the drugs sold, so law enforcement would not just make one buy, but rather a number of buys, until a weight threshold was reached. If the offense carried an enhancement for possession of a firearm, the undercover would beg the defendant to find a gun, any gun, that the undercover could buy. The worst examples are the “stash house” robberies, where the ATF agents running the sting would tell tales of a fictitious safe house stacked with kilos and kilos of cocaine. Why tell the perps they could knock over a place and get 4 kilos of coke when it was just as easy to promise 25 kilos?
Some guns you just know aren’t for plinking at cans…
In today’s case, Desean complained on appeal that there wasn’t enough evidence to apply the 4-level enhancement to his sentence (giving him 71 months instead of 46 months). Monday, the 1st Circuit affirmed the enhancement and sentence.
The district court found that “the cooperating witness [said] that he [was] going to take the serial number off” and that therefore “Mr. Taylor as a supplier would know [that the transfer] involved some unlawful possession or the use or disposal of the firearm unlawfully.” Dasean said the audio didn’t prove he heard the buyer say that, but the Circuit concluded otherwise., holding that because Taylor must have heard the statement,
then the District Court committed no clear or obvious error — or, for that matter, any error at all — in concluding that Taylor knew or should have known that the removal of a serial number is indicative of “anticipation that the gun will be used in criminal activity,” and thus that Taylor knew or should have known that CW-1 intended to use or dispose of the firearm unlawfully.
Now that’s a totem pole of inferences! The Court inferred from the audio that Dasean heard the buyer saw he’d remove the number, it inferred that Dasean knew that removing serial numbers indicates the buyer plans to be up to no good with the gun, and therefore it inferred that Dasean knew or should have known that the buyer intended to use or dispose of the firearm unlawfully.
Maybe so, but we think that begs the question. The cooperating witness did not intend to use the firearm unlawfully, or, for that matter, to remove the serial number. Instead, he was buying the firearm (and making the claim) at the behest of law enforcement, without any intention of carrying out his promise. It’s pretty obvious the buyer claimed he wanted to remove the serial number solely to trap Dasean with a higher guideline range. But can a defendant be said to know a b uyer will do something the buyer has no intention of doing when he claims to plan to do so?
It’s just unseemly to lie to someone, and then punish them because you assert they must have believed their lie.
Of course, there was a sawed-off shotgun, too. Under the National Firearms Act, one may not possess a sawed-off shotgun without registering it with the ATF. But the district court conceded that proper registration of the shotgun was possible, just unlikely. The Court of Appeals agreed, noting among other things that Dasean knew the buyer was up to no good because he “was on notice that CW-1 had expressed during the September transaction an intention to remove the serial number from a firearm.”
We don’t excuse selling guns to people who intend to misuse them, but the entire exercise in pumping up Dasean’s sentence struck us a serious case of bootstrapping.
My inbox has been flooded in the last few weeks with people wondering what all will happen today, Thursday, February 1st. One said changes in the gun laws will go into effect. Another heard that the meth laws will change. Another explained that all criminal history points from prior state convictions will be dropped from Guidelines criminal history. A fourth heard that acquitted conduct will be banned for sentencing purposes.
