United States v. Corey Keys
785 F.3d 1240
8th Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Corey Keys pled guilty to one-count conspiracy to distribute cocaine; district court sentenced him to 151 months as a career offender.
- Keys has three prior Iowa felony drug convictions (2005, 2008, 2009); incarcerated 2008–2012 and resumed trafficking after parole.
- Plea agreement charged conspiracy conduct beginning on or about March 6, 2012 through April 24, 2013.
- At sentencing Keys argued his 2008 and 2009 state convictions were part of the same course of conduct as the federal offense and thus should not count as prior convictions for career-offender classification.
- District court applied U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (career offender), relying on § 4A1.2 and Application Note 8 to § 1B1.3, counted the 2008 and 2009 convictions, and imposed a within-Guidelines term of 151 months.
- Keys also argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable and urged a downward variance due to alleged racial disparate impact of the career-offender guideline; the district court declined to vary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keys) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Keys's 2008 and 2009 convictions are "relevant conduct" so they must be excluded from "prior sentence" for career-offender status | 2008 and 2009 convictions were part of the same conspiracy/relevant conduct as the instant federal offense and thus cannot be counted as prior convictions | The state convictions were separate, severable offenses (different time periods, investigations, facts, locations) and preceded the federal conduct, so they count as prior sentences | Affirmed: convictions were not relevant conduct; Application Note 8 bars treating earlier-sentenced conduct as the same course of conduct, so they count for career-offender status |
| Whether district court erred in applying Application Note 8 to § 1B1.3 | Note 8 should not bar treating the prior state convictions as relevant given factual similarities | Note 8 explicitly treats conduct for which a sentence was imposed before the federal acts as prior criminal history, not the same course of conduct | Affirmed: Application Note 8 applies and precludes treating prior-sentenced conduct as part of the instant offense |
| Whether Keys’s sentence was substantively unreasonable (request for downward variance based on racial disparate impact of career-offender guideline) | District court should have varied downward because career-offender guideline has racially disparate impacts | District court considered the argument and permissibly declined to vary for a policy reason | Affirmed: within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; no abuse of discretion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hernandez, 712 F.3d 407 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing relevant-conduct determinations)
- United States v. Boroughf, 649 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (deference to district court sentencing findings)
- United States v. Holmes, 751 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation)
- United States v. Walterman, 343 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2003) (authority of Sentencing Guidelines commentary)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1993) (Guidelines commentary authoritative absent inconsistency with law)
- United States v. Weiland, 284 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2002) (severability of prior convictions for relevant-conduct analysis)
- United States v. Pinkin, 675 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2012) (factors for relevant-conduct determination)
- United States v. Pepper, 747 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2014) (different investigations/sovereigns support separability)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for abuse of discretion review of substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Solis-Bermudez, 501 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2007) (presumptive reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Robison, 759 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2014) (factors for abuse-of-discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentencing-factor review)
- United States v. Coleman, 635 F.3d 380 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court not required to vary for policy disagreement)
- United States v. Barron, 557 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion on variance for policy objections)