United States v. Brooks Chambers
956 F.3d 667
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- Chambers pleaded guilty in 2003 to conspiring to distribute 50–150 grams of crack; because of a partially withdrawn §851 notice his statutory minimum was 20 years and maximum life.
- At sentencing (2005) the PSR labeled him a career offender under this Court’s Harp approach (considering the maximum for a defendant with the worst criminal history), producing a Guidelines range of 262–327 months; the district court sentenced him to 262 months.
- The Fourth Circuit later overruled Harp in Simmons, applying a defendant‑specific test and holding Simmons retroactive, meaning Chambers’s career‑offender designation was erroneous at the time of sentencing.
- The First Step Act §404(b) (2018) makes the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes retroactive; Chambers moved under §404(b) (2019) asking the district court to recalculate Guidelines without the career‑offender enhancement (which, combined with the Fair Sentencing Act, would yield a 57–71 month Guidelines range) and to vary downward under §3553(a).
- The district court found Chambers eligible under the First Step Act but declined to correct the career‑offender error or vary downward, reducing only supervised release; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the First Step Act permits recalculation of Guidelines errors and consideration of §3553(a) factors and post‑sentencing conduct.
- Judge Rushing dissented, asserting §3582(c)(1)(B) and the First Step Act do not authorize retroactive correction of Guidelines application errors and warning the majority’s approach conflicts with precedent and finality principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §404(b) of the First Step Act permits correcting a retroactive Guidelines‑calculation error (e.g., Simmons career‑offender error) when imposing a reduced sentence | Chambers: §404(b) allows courts to "impose" a reduced sentence "as if" the Fair Sentencing Act applied, which requires recalculating Guidelines and applying intervening retroactive case law | Gov: §404(b) only authorizes applying the Fair Sentencing Act statutory changes; courts must preserve other original sentencing determinations (no correction of Guidelines error) | Held: §404(b) allows courts to correct retroactive Guidelines errors and to recalculate the Guidelines when imposing a reduced sentence under the First Step Act |
| Whether the district court must consider §3553(a) factors in a §404(b) resentencing | Chambers: §3553(a) applies because the court is "impos[ing] a reduced sentence" and must consider Guidelines and §3553(a) | Gov: contested but conceded on appeal that §3553(a) applies | Held: §3553(a) factors apply in a §404(b) resentencing |
| Whether the resentencing court may consider post‑sentencing conduct and vary downward from the Guidelines in a §404(b) proceeding | Chambers: court may consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation and other conduct and may vary downward under §3553(a) | Gov: argued limits but conceded district courts have discretion to consider §3553(a) and post‑sentencing conduct | Held: Court may consider post‑sentencing conduct and may vary from Guidelines (subject to statutory minimums) |
| Remedy and scope of remand: must the district court remove the career‑offender enhancement and re‑sentence? | Chambers: remove enhancement (per Simmons) and consider a reduced custodial term (potentially time served) | Gov: deny relief or limit resentencing to statutory Fair Sentencing Act adjustments | Held: Vacated and remanded; district court must recalculate Guidelines without the career‑offender enhancement and may consider §3553(a) and post‑sentencing evidence (but cannot go below applicable statutory minimum) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (adopts defendant‑specific test for whether a prior state conviction is punishable by >1 year; overruled Harp)
- United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2005) (used worst‑possible criminal history to determine punishability for career‑offender purposes)
- Miller v. United States, 735 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2013) (held Simmons applies retroactively in certain contexts)
- United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act §404(b) proceedings brought under §3582(c)(1)(B); distinguishes §3582(c)(2) constraints)
- United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (held First Step Act resentencing limited to Fair Sentencing Act changes and declined to apply intervening caselaw to remove enhancement)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (interpreted §3582(c)(2) as authorizing only limited adjustments based on Guidelines amendments)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (postsentencing rehabilitation is admissible and relevant at resentencing)
- United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 2015) (held Simmons could not be used on collateral review to attack a career‑offender Guidelines enhancement)