United States v. Arthur Ferguson
876 F.3d 512
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Arthur Ferguson pleaded guilty in federal court (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and was sentenced to 84 months + 3 years supervised release.
- While on supervised release he was convicted in Pennsylvania state court for sexual assault of a 10-year-old and received 10–20 years in state custody.
- U.S. Probation petitioned to revoke supervised release; Ferguson admitted the violation and did not request a sentence below the 24‑month statutory maximum for revocation.
- At the revocation hearing the District Court recited a lengthy criminal history (juvenile adjudications, multiple adult convictions) and also mentioned five prior arrests that did not result in convictions.
- The District Court imposed 24 months’ federal imprisonment consecutive to the state term; Ferguson appealed, arguing due process violation because the court relied on bare arrest records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mention of prior arrests that did not lead to convictions constituted plain error affecting due process at sentencing | Ferguson: The District Court relied on his bare arrest record (like in Berry and Mateo‑Medina), violating due process and requiring resentencing | Government: The court merely recited a lengthy criminal history that independently supported the sentence; mere mention of arrests ≠ reliance | Court: No plain error — mention of arrests did not show actual reliance because many convictions alone justified the characterization and sentence |
| Standard of review and burden for preserved vs. forfeited sentencing objections | Ferguson: (implicit) his due process claim should be evaluated and remedied | Government: Objection was not preserved; appellate review is plain‑error only, so Ferguson must show error that is plain and affects substantial rights | Court: Applied plain‑error review; Ferguson failed to show (1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) affected substantial rights |
| Applicability of Berry/Mateo‑Medina rule to this record | Ferguson: Those precedents control and any reference to bare arrests taints sentence | Government: Those cases forbid reliance on bare arrests, but do not make every mention reversible; context matters | Court: Berry/Mateo‑Medina condemn reliance on bare arrest records, but do not require reversal where context shows arrests were incidental and convictions sufficed |
| Whether district courts may consider arrests if underlying conduct is proven | Ferguson: Bare arrests should not be used; due process bars reliance without proof | Government: Courts may consider prior conduct if proven by preponderance | Court: Reaffirmed that arrests may be considered if the underlying conduct is proven by a preponderance; bare arrests without proof cannot support an increased sentence (but that was not the situation here) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Berry, 553 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2009) (a bare arrest record cannot justify increasing a sentence; reliance on arrests without proof is plain error)
- United States v. Mateo‑Medina, 845 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2017) (applies Berry; sentencing tainted where court relied on arrests to find extensive criminal‑justice interaction)
- United States v. Zabielski, 711 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 2013) (sentencing courts may consider prior similar conduct not resulting in conviction if proven by a preponderance)
- United States v. Flores‑Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc) (discusses plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Goodson, 544 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2008) (sets out elements of plain‑error review)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (establishes the three‑part plain‑error framework)