United States v. Coleman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6506
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Coleman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846.
- At sentencing, base offense level 26 and criminal history III were enhanced by career offender provisions to 32 and VI.
- Three levels were subtracted for acceptance of responsibility, yielding a 29 offense level and VI history.
- Guidelines range was 151–188 months; the district court sentenced Coleman to 170 months.
- The district court treated a state misdemeanor conviction (imprisonment < two years) as a qualifying felony under § 4B1.1, career offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4B1.2 defines a prior felony properly for career offender. | Coleman argues ACCA-like 'violent felony' limits apply to 4B1.2. | Coleman argues the Commission exceeded mandate by not using ACCA definition. | District court correctly applied 4B1.2's definition; affirmed career offender status. |
| Whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable under career offender guidelines. | Coleman contends the guidelines lack empirical support and require downward variance. | Court followed the within-guidelines framework and upholds reasonableness. | Presumption of reasonableness within guidelines applies; sentence reasonable. |
| Whether the court should have varied downward based on Coleman’s minor convictions. | Coleman argues for variance due to minor prior conduct and lack of empirical support. | Court was not required to vary and the career offender result stands. | Not required to vary; district court reasonably used career offender sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Daniels, 625 F.3d 529 (8th Cir.2010) (review of district court's application of Guidelines de novo)
- United States v. Craig, 630 F.3d 717 (8th Cir.2011) (distinguishing § 4B1.2 and ACCA definitions)
- United States v. Ross, 613 F.3d 805 (8th Cir.2010) (distinctions between § 4B1.1 and § 924(e) definitions)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness within Guidelines)
- United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir.2010) (presumption of reasonableness applies to within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Talamantes, 620 F.3d 901 (8th Cir.2010) (empirical justification not required for within-Guidelines variance claim)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2009) (policy disagreement not required to trigger variance; not compelled)
- United States v. Kiderlen, 569 F.3d 358 (8th Cir.2009) (within-Guidelines reasoning aligns with congressional direction)