United States v. Carnell King
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11748
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Carnell King obtained personal identifying information for >100 people and used/attempted to use 185 access devices and filed 62 false tax refund claims between 2012–2014.
- Actual reported loss was $10,980, but Guidelines treated intended losses as $195,948 (IRS claims) + $92,500 (185 devices at $500/device minimum), totaling $288,448.
- Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 and grouping rules, King’s guideline range was 46–57 months, plus a mandatory consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft, yielding a guideline-influenced total of 70–81 months before variance; the district court imposed 30 months (below guideline) plus the mandatory 24 months, total 54 months.
- King did not dispute the mathematical guideline calculation but argued that the § 3553(a) ‘‘parsimony’’ principle should allow the court to lower the guideline loss calculation itself (i.e., challenge the $500/device minimum) as a preliminary step before § 3553(a) variance.
- The district court applied the Guidelines, then exercised discretion under § 3553(a) to vary downward; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting King’s proposed intermediate step of reworking guideline calculations based on § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3553(a)’s parsimony principle permits courts to reduce an otherwise-correct Guidelines loss calculation (e.g., $500/device minimum) before conducting a § 3553(a) variance | King: § 3553(a) requires that guideline calculations themselves be adjusted when they produce sentences greater than necessary (i.e., apply parsimony to the Guidelines first) | Government/District Ct: Guidelines are advisory; court should calculate Guidelines correctly then use § 3553(a) to vary if appropriate; no intermediate re-calculation required | Rejected King’s proposal: court must calculate Guidelines as written, then consider § 3553(a) for variance; § 3553(a) does not mandate altering guideline calculations in individual cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing courts must calculate Guidelines and then consider § 3553(a) to impose a tailored sentence)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review presumes reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences and district courts must consider Guidelines’ advice but may vary)
- Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory post-Booker)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines are advisory; reasonableness review applies)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreements)
- United States v. Pennington, 667 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2012) (reaffirms proper sequence: apply Guidelines, then § 3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Freeman, 843 F.3d 315 (7th Cir. 2016) (district courts not required to duplicate Sentencing Commission’s policy work)
- United States v. Rosales, 813 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2016) (same)
- United States v. Estrada-Mederos, 784 F.3d 1086 (7th Cir. 2015) (same)
- United States v. Schmitz, 717 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2013) (same)
- United States v. Moon, 808 F.3d 1085 (6th Cir. 2015) (affirmed use of $500/device minimum as not substantively unreasonable)