United States v. Chad Taylor
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17665
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Chad Taylor pled guilty to possessing a prohibited object (a sharpened 5.75-inch rod) in prison in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2).
- The district court applied the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), treating Taylor’s offense as a "crime of violence" based on the guideline's residual clause (§ 4B1.2(a)(2)).
- Taylor appealed, arguing the guideline residual clause is unconstitutionally vague in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States.
- The panel held the appeal in abeyance pending Johnson and then requested supplemental briefing after Johnson was decided.
- The government conceded that Taylor’s sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing in light of Johnson, and the majority vacated the sentence and remanded.
- A dissent (Judge Colloton) urged affirmance, relying on Eighth Circuit precedent holding the Sentencing Guidelines not susceptible to vagueness challenges and arguing Johnson does not control that question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the residual-clause language in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague | Taylor: Clause mirrors ACCA residual clause; Johnson invalidating ACCA residual clause renders the guideline clause void | Govt/Dissent: Wivell and other circuit precedent hold guidelines not subject to vagueness attack; Johnson does not overrule that rule | Majority: Vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing; left question of guideline clause's constitutionality to the district court on remand |
| Whether Taylor’s § 1791(a)(2) conviction is a "crime of violence" under the guidelines | Taylor: Possession of the object does not necessarily present serious potential risk of physical injury | Govt/Dissent: Prior Eighth Circuit decisions (e.g., Boyce) treat possession of weapons in prison as creating serious potential risk; guideline commentary supports finding | Majority: Did not resolve; remanded for resentencing (left determination to district court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Wivell, 893 F.2d 156 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding Sentencing Guidelines not susceptible to vagueness attack)
- United States v. Boyce, 633 F.3d 708 (8th Cir. 2011) (treating possession of a weapon in a correctional facility as a violent felony under prior framework)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must correctly calculate advisory guideline ranges)