United States v. Calvin Matchett, 837 F.3d 1118

Background

This en banc rehearing denial concerns United States v. Matchett, where the Eleventh Circuit panel held that advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to void-for-vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.
Historically: sentencing moved from fixed statutory punishments to judge-tailored ranges; Congress created the Sentencing Commission and Guidelines (initially mandatory) in 1984; Booker made Guidelines advisory (Booker v. United States).
The specific controversy arises from the Guidelines’ "residual clause" (defining a "crime of violence" as conduct posing a "serious potential risk of physical injury")—language identical to the ACCA residual clause that the Supreme Court invalidated as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States.
The panel (and Judges Pryor and Carnes in a Statement respecting denial) reasoned the vagueness doctrine targets laws that regulate private conduct and fix punishments, while advisory Guidelines regulate judicial discretion and therefore do not implicate notice or arbitrary-enforcement concerns in the same way.
Dissenting judges argued (Wilson, Martin, Rosenbaum) that post-Booker appellate reasonableness review centers on the Guidelines; therefore vague Guidelines (notably the residual clause) produce arbitrary enforcement and lack of fair notice and must be subject to vagueness review. The Sentencing Commission later repealed the career-offender residual clause effective Aug 1, 2016.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the vagueness (void-for-vagueness) doctrine applies to advisory Sentencing Guidelines	Matchett (and dissenters invoking Johnson): vague guideline language (e.g., residual clause) denies notice and invites arbitrary enforcement in sentencing and appellate review	Government/majority: advisory Guidelines regulate judges, not primary private conduct; they do not fix punishments or proscribe conduct, so vagueness doctrine does not apply	Majority: advisory Guidelines cannot be void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause (Matchett panel affirmed)
Whether Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause extends to identical language in the Guidelines	Plaintiff: identical language yields the same indeterminacy; Johnson’s rationale applies to Guidelines and renders relevant provisions unconstitutional	Majority: Johnson addressed a criminal statute regulating private conduct; it does not control advisory guidelines directed at judges; Peugh and Booker do not mandate vagueness review of advisory Guidelines	Held: Matchett panel refused to apply Johnson to invalidate advisory Guideline provisions
Whether the panel decision warrants rehearing en banc	Petitioners: circuit should correct what they see as a wrong, protect defendants sentenced under now-discredited language, and resolve circuit splits	Respondents/majority: Matchett is correct as decided; circuits are not unanimously contrary; Supreme Court review likely (Beckles); en banc rehearing not a prudent use of resources	Denied: court refused rehearing en banc; statement concurs in denial
Practical effect on sentencing and appellate review	Petitioners/dissenters: vagueness in Guidelines undermines reliable calculation of Guidelines range and appellate reasonableness review; leads to arbitrary results	Majority: advisory nature, §3553(a) factors, judge discretion, and Commission reform are adequate; other remedies (commission amendments, policy-based variances) mitigate problems	Outcome: Matchett remains precedent in Eleventh Circuit (until Supreme Court or en banc change); Commission repealed the specific residual clause later

Key Cases Cited

Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (upheld constitutionality of Guidelines scheme and held Guidelines do not regulate primary conduct)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held mandatory Guidelines unconstitutional and rendered Guidelines advisory)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (held Guidelines may implicate Ex Post Facto concerns; emphasized Guidelines’ central role in sentencing)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (described Guidelines as the starting point and "lodestar"; explained effects of erroneous Guidelines calculations)
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) (held no due-process expectancy that a defendant will receive a sentence within the presumptively applicable Guidelines range post-Booker)
United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (panel opinion holding advisory Guidelines cannot be challenged as void for vagueness)