United States v. Bowman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2328
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bowman pled guilty to federal counts for conspiracy to distribute ecstasy, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of a substance containing BZP.
- Bowman, while on Michigan probation, was serving an undischarged state sentence when federal sentencing occurred.
- The district court imposed two 120-month federal sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the undischarged state sentences.
- The court ordered rehabilitative and educational conditions as part of the consecutive federal sentences.
- Bowman appealed arguing (i) the court erred in making the sentences consecutive, (ii) the court failed to properly analyze § 5G1.3(c) discretion, (iii) potential ineffective assistance due to lack of objection, and (iv) rehabilitation considerations violated law.
- Bowman argued the appeal waiver in his plea agreement barred these challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the appellate waiver bar Bowman's challenge to the consecutive sentence? | Bowman argues waiver does not cover § 5G1.3(c) issues. | Bowman contends waiver is ambiguous and some challenges fall outside its scope. | Appellate waiver does not bar the consecutive-sentence challenge. |
| Did the district court properly recognize discretion under § 5G1.3(c)? | Bowman argues court treated § 5G1.3(c) as mandatory. | Government contends discretion would not change outcome; error was non-prejudicial. | District court erred by treating § 5G1.3(c) as mandatory; remand required. |
| Should plain-error review apply to the consecutive-sentence issue? | Bowman asserts plain error prejudicial to substantial rights. | Government argues plain error applies due to failure to object. | Plain-error standard applies or, at minimum, remand per Gibbs requires resentencing. |
| May rehabilitative considerations be considered in sentencing? | Bowman argues such considerations were impermissible at initial sentencing. | Government acknowledges potential circuit split but supports below. | Issue addressed as moot on remand; guidance provided but not ruling on merits here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gibbs, 506 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2007) (plain error where district court misstated § 5G1.3(c) mandatory nature)
- United States v. Trammel, 404 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2005) (presumption of prejudice when guidelines are treated as mandatory)
- United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2005) (rare cases rebutting prejudice presumption; evidence must be clear)
- United States v. Mooneyham, 473 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2007) (rare cases where evidence overcomes prejudice from mandatory guidelines)
- United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2000) (appellate waiver may not preclude challenge to § 5G1.3 application)
- United States v. Stearns, 479 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2007) (waiver narrowly construed to preserve challenges to sentence decisions)
- United States v. Fitch, 282 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2002) (ambiguities in plea agreements construed against government)
- United States v. Johnson, 979 F.2d 396 (6th Cir. 1992) (plea agreements considerations in interpretation)