United States v. Amadu Barry
713 F. App'x 118
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Amadu Barry, a Liberian lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in Jan 2015 to credit-card fraud-related offenses and was sentenced to time served plus concurrent three-year terms of supervised release.
- Supervised-release conditions included obeying laws and reporting to a probation officer as directed.
- ~7 months into supervision Barry was arrested by local authorities for possession of marijuana and suspected use of fraudulent credit cards; he failed to report to his federal probation officer.
- A probation petition charged two supervised-release violations; the District Court found violations, revoked release, and imposed 14 months imprisonment followed by a new 20-month term of supervised release.
- Barry appealed, arguing the court erred by not addressing U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c)’s presumption against supervised release for deportable noncitizens (raised after this Court’s decision in Azcona-Polanco).
- The Third Circuit agreed the District Court failed to address § 5D1.1(c) but affirmed because Barry did not show plain error affected his substantial rights given the record evidence of recidivism and the court’s public-protection concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court procedurally erred by imposing supervised release without addressing U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) | Barry: Court failed to consider Guideline presumption against supervised release for deportable aliens, violating Azcona-Polanco | Government: District Court’s sentencing discretion and public-protection rationale justified supervised release; error (if any) did not affect substantial rights | Court: Error occurred (court didn’t address §5D1.1(c)) but did not satisfy plain-error prejudice prong; affirmed |
| Whether plain-error review applies | Barry: Issue was not preserved at district level, so should be reviewed for plain error | Government: Same (argued no reversible error); relied on record to show no prejudice | Court: Plain-error standard governs because Barry did not raise the issue below |
| Whether supervised release was inappropriate given likely deportation | Barry: Guided by §5D1.1(c) supervised release ordinarily should not be imposed when defendant likely to be removed | Government: District Court properly focused on defendant’s risk of recidivism and public safety; removal was not imminent or assured | Court: §5D1.1(c) provides a presumption but district court may impose supervised release for added deterrence/protection; here record supports court’s exercise of discretion |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights and warrants remand | Barry: Absent the error, a new term of supervised release likely would not have been imposed | Government: Given facts (failure to report, arrests, prior convictions, evasiveness), no reasonable probability sentence would differ | Court: No reasonable probability of a different outcome; plain error relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Azcona-Polanco, 865 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2017) (district court must address substance of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) when imposing supervised release on deportable immigrants)
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard discussion)
- United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court retains discretion whether to follow § 5D1.1(c) guidance)