United States v. Christopher Burnell
2 F.4th 790
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Christopher Burnell pled guilty to: possession of >5 grams of crack with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841) and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- He received a total sentence of 262 months. After the First Step Act (2018), Burnell moved to reduce his sentence.
- The district court found Burnell eligible for First Step Act relief but denied a reduction, explaining the Act did not change his Guidelines range because he qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c)(3) (the § 924(c) count controlled his range).
- Burnell appealed, arguing the district court unlawfully tethered its decision to the Guidelines and that one prior Arkansas conviction (fleeing under Ark. Code § 5-54-125) should not count as a violent offense for career-offender status.
- The government did not dispute that Burnell’s crack conviction was a covered offense eligible for First Step Act consideration.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not err in declining to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence and that the First Step Act does not require relitigation of preexisting sentencing determinations unrelated to the Fair Sentencing Act changes.
Issues
| Issue | Burnell's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by basing its denial on the Guidelines | District court unlawfully "tethered" its decision to the Guidelines and thus misapplied First Step Act authority | District court correctly exercised discretion and explained it would not reduce the sentence because the Guidelines range was unchanged | Affirmed: no legal error; court expressly declined to exercise discretion because Guidelines range unaffected |
| Whether Burnell’s career-offender status was improperly applied because an Arkansas fleeing conviction is not violent | The Arkansas fleeing conviction does not qualify as a violent felony and so § 4B1.1 should not apply | First Step Act does not require reassessing prior sentencing determinations unaffected by Fair Sentencing Act; career-offender finding stands for First Step Act purposes | Affirmed: First Step Act only directs reassessment as if Fair Sentencing Act were in effect (limited to crack threshold changes); district court not required to relitigate unrelated prior findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act allows reassessment "as if" Fair Sentencing Act were in effect)
- United States v. Banks, 960 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act authorizes district courts to impose reduced sentences)
- United States v. Hoskins, 973 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2020) (district courts have substantial discretion under § 404)
- United States v. Harris, 960 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejects the notion courts are "tethered" to Guidelines when deciding First Step Act motions)
- United States v. Howard, 962 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2020) (a plain statement that a court declines to exercise discretion suffices)
- United States v. Grant, [citation="813 F. App'x 246"] (8th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act retroactivity limited to statutory crack-weight threshold changes)
- United States v. Wiseman, 932 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 2019) (explaining the limited scope of First Step Act retroactivity)
- United States v. Haynes, 968 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2020) (addressing covered-offense eligibility under the First Step Act)