United States v. Anthony Crenshaw
703 F. App'x 308
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony Crenshaw pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 10 years.
- The district court applied a two-level USSG §3C1.1 obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on an affidavit Crenshaw filed claiming he had not received Miranda warnings; the court found the affidavit materially false and willful.
- The district court also applied an increased base offense level under USSG §2K2.1 based on a finding that Crenshaw had two prior controlled-substance convictions.
- Crenshaw timely objected to the obstruction enhancement but did not timely object to the prior-offenses enhancement; appellate review was therefore clear-error for obstruction and plain-error for the prior-offenses issue.
- The Fifth Circuit upheld the obstruction enhancement but found plain error in treating a Texas possession-with-intent-to-deliver conviction as a qualifying controlled-substance offense under the Guidelines (relying on United States v. Tanksley).
- Because the erroneous enhancement increased Crenshaw’s guideline range by 24 months and he was sentenced at the top of that range, the Fifth Circuit exercised its discretion to correct the plain error, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement applies for affidavit asserting no Miranda warning | Crenshaw: affidavit was legal argument/conclusion, not materially false fact | Government/District Ct: affidavit alleged the factual claim he was not given warnings; video showed he was Mirandized and voluntarily waived rights | Affirmed: enhancement proper; district court’s finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the affidavit showed willful obstruction required by §3C1.1 | Crenshaw: district court failed to make willfulness finding | District Ct adopted PSR finding that Crenshaw willfully attempted to obstruct justice | Affirmed: willfulness finding adopted and sufficient |
| Whether a Texas possession-with-intent-to-deliver conviction counts as a prior "controlled substance offense" under USSG §2K2.1 | Crenshaw: (challenged on appeal) the conviction does not qualify | Government: court treated conviction as qualifying for enhancement | Reversed for plain error: Tanksley controls — Texas PWID does not qualify as a controlled-substance offense under the Guidelines |
| Whether appellate court should correct the plain error given sentencing disparity and defendant’s criminal history | Crenshaw: 24-month disparity warrants correction | Government: defendant’s recidivism and criminal history weigh against correction | Court exercised discretion to correct the error, vacated sentence, and remanded (declined to prescribe a new sentence) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 607 F.3d 144 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for §3C1.1 factual findings)
- United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494 (5th Cir.) (plain-error framework on unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (Texas possession-with-intent-to-deliver does not qualify as a controlled-substance offense under the Guidelines)
- United States v. Valles, 484 F.3d 745 (5th Cir.) (an error is plain if clear under current law)
- United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 821 F.3d 659 (5th Cir.) (factors for exercising discretion to correct plain error)
- United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.) (vacatur where sentencing disparity warranted correction)
- United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.) (vacatur for significant sentencing disparity)
- United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355 (5th Cir.) (vacatur where sentence fell outside correct guideline range)
- United States v. Flores, [citation="601 F. App'x 242"] (5th Cir.) (recidivism can counsel against correcting sentencing error)