United States v. Darryl Rollins, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15960

Background

Rollins pleaded guilty to selling crack cocaine; district court sentenced him to 84 months after classifying him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior felonies: a 2005 drug conviction and a conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun.
The career-offender designation relied on § 4B1.2(a)’s definition of “crime of violence,” which includes an elements clause and a residual clause; application note 1 listed possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a qualifying offense.
Earlier Seventh Circuit precedent (Raupp) had given controlling deference to application note 1 as an interpretation of the guideline’s residual clause; Miller had held a sawed-off shotgun possession was not a predicate violent felony under the ACCA’s equivalent residual clause.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, the government conceded Johnson’s holding applies to § 4B1.2(a)(2) and urged overruling of Tichenor (which had barred vagueness challenges to the Guidelines).
The en banc Seventh Circuit held the guideline residual clause unconstitutional (following Hurlburt), concluded application note 1 has no independent legal force apart from the residual clause (per Stinson), overruled Raupp, and vacated Rollins’s sentence; case remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Rollins's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 4B1.2(a)(2) (the residual clause) is void under Johnson	Johnson’s vagueness holding applies to the guideline residual clause; thus it is invalid	Initially defended Tichenor (guidelines not subject to vagueness attack), later conceded Johnson applies	Held: residual clause is unconstitutionally vague (en banc decision applies)
Whether possession of a sawed-off shotgun qualifies as a "crime of violence" via application note 1 if the residual clause is invalid	Miller compels that sawed-off shotgun is not a predicate under similar residual clauses; Rollins argued application note cannot save the classification	Government argued application note independently classifies the offense as a crime of violence	Held: application note is only an interpretation of the residual clause and has no independent force; thus it cannot supply a predicate once the residual clause is invalid
Whether Raupp remains controlling (i.e., deference to application note to include offenses not textually in guideline)	Rollins argued Raupp cannot stand post-Johnson because its premise depended on a valid residual clause	Government relied on Raupp to uphold career-offender designation	Held: Raupp overruled — its premise undone by Johnson and the invalidity of the residual clause
Whether the error warrants relief on plain-error review / prejudice from incorrect Guidelines range	Rollins argued the career-offender error inflated his Guidelines range and affected his sentence	Government did not contest that error is plain after concession; argued sentence still reasonable	Held: Error was plain and affected substantial rights; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing (Molina‑Martinez presumption that an incorrect Guidelines range likely affected outcome applies)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Miller, 721 F.3d 435 (7th Cir.) (addressed sawed-off shotgun under ACCA residual clause)
United States v. Raupp, 677 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.) (deferred to application note as interpretation of guideline residual clause)
United States v. Tichenor, 683 F.3d 358 (7th Cir.) (had foreclosed vagueness challenges to the Guidelines)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (application notes are agency interpretations entitled to Auer deference but have no independent force)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (presumption that an incorrect Guidelines range will often show a reasonable probability of a different outcome)