United States v. Byron Holton
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20026
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Byron Holton participated in robberies that began with drug dealers and later targeted grocery stores; he confessed to the Shop ‘n Save robbery.
- A superseding indictment charged Holton with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, three Hobbs Act robbery counts for grocery-store hits, and three § 924(c) firearm counts; he pleaded guilty to robbing Shop ‘n Save and its § 924(c) count, was convicted by jury of conspiracy, and acquitted on the other grocery-robbery counts.
- The advisory Guidelines range for the grouped conspiracy and Shop ‘n Save robbery was 41–51 months; the § 924(c) count carried a mandatory consecutive term.
- At sentencing the judge imposed an above-Guidelines 96-month term on the conspiracy count (concurrent to a 51-month robbery term) and an 84-month consecutive § 924(c) term, explaining that uncharged drug-dealer robberies were relevant to the nature and seriousness of the conspiracy.
- Holton argued the judge improperly relied on uncharged and acquitted conduct, violating his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and supplanting the jury’s role; the government urged an enhanced sentence based on the conspiracy’s scope and preponderant evidence of additional robberies.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that judges may consider uncharged conduct proved by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing (per Supreme Court precedent) and that the record showed the district judge applied that standard.
Issues
| Issue | Holton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may rely on uncharged conduct to impose an above-Guidelines sentence | Judge usurped jury role; using acquitted/uncharged conduct violates Fifth and Sixth Amendment because facts weren’t found beyond a reasonable doubt | Sentencing may consider relevant uncharged conduct under § 3553(a); preponderance standard applies and supports a higher sentence | Court affirmed: judges may consider uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence when sentencing; district judge’s statements show she applied that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (Sup. Ct.) (district courts may consider uncharged conduct at sentencing if proved by a preponderance)
- United States v. Heckel, 570 F.3d 791 (7th Cir.) (recognizing Watts principle in this circuit)
- United States v. White, 737 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir.) (sentence upheld where record makes clear judge found uncharged conduct by preponderance)
- Jones v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 8 (Sup. Ct.) (denial of certiorari with dissent expressing contrary view on judge-found sentencing facts)