Davis v. United States
140 S. Ct. 1060
SCOTUS2020Background
- July 2016: Dallas police approached a suspicious car and found Charles Davis in the driver's seat; officers smelled marijuana.
- Officers ordered Davis out, observed a handgun in the door compartment, searched him, and found methamphetamine pills.
- Davis, a convicted felon, was federally indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possession with intent to distribute; he pleaded guilty to both counts.
- The District Court sentenced Davis to 4 years 9 months and ordered the federal sentence to run consecutively to any state sentences from an earlier (2015) arrest; Davis did not object at sentencing.
- On appeal, Davis first argued that the 2015 state offenses and 2016 federal offenses were the "same course of conduct" under the Sentencing Guidelines and therefore the sentences should run concurrently; he had not preserved this at district court.
- The Fifth Circuit refused to apply plain-error review, treating the claim as a factual issue that, under its precedent, cannot constitute plain error; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, rejected that categorical rule, vacated the Fifth Circuit judgment, and remanded without resolving whether plain error occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellate court may categorically refuse to apply Rule 52(b) plain-error review to unpreserved factual arguments | Davis: Rule 52(b) allows consideration of plain errors, including factual errors; Fifth Circuit's categorical rule is unlawful | Fifth Circuit/U.S.: Under Fifth Circuit precedent, factual questions resolvable at sentencing cannot constitute plain error and thus need not be reviewed | Court: No legal basis for a categorical bar; Rule 52(b) does not exempt factual errors from plain-error review; vacated and remanded |
| Whether Davis met the plain-error standard (i.e., whether sentences should run concurrently under the Guidelines) | Davis: The offenses were same course of conduct; the unpreserved error affected substantial rights | Government: (implicitly) the Fifth Circuit did not evaluate plain error; argued the court need not review under its precedent | Court: Did not decide whether Davis satisfied the plain-error standard; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (articulates plain-error standard under Rule 52(b))
- United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Circuit precedent precluding plain-error review for certain factual questions)
- United States v. González-Castillo, 562 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2009) (applies plain-error review to unpreserved factual arguments)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (applies plain-error review to unpreserved issues)