United States v. Daryl Terrell Gilbert
16-17680
| 11th Cir. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Daryl Terrell Gilbert pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); PSR relied on two prior Alabama robbery convictions to apply U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (crime-of-violence enhancement).
- The PSR treated Alabama first- and second-degree robbery as crimes of violence, producing a base-offense level that yielded a 57–71 month Guidelines range; the district court sentenced Gilbert to 57 months.
- Gilbert objected that Alabama robbery does not categorically qualify as a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines’ elements clause (Curtis Johnson standard) and argued it did not match generic robbery for the enumerated clause; he sought a lower range (21–27 months).
- At sentencing the court concluded Alabama robbery did not categorically satisfy the elements clause but nevertheless found, based on the PSR’s factual description of Gilbert’s conduct, that his prior robberies were crimes of violence and imposed 57 months.
- Gilbert timely moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) to correct that clear error (arguing the court impermissibly relied on actual conduct rather than the categorical approach); the district court granted relief and resentenced him to 36 months.
- The Government appealed, arguing Rule 35(a) relief was improper because reasonable precedent (notably United States v. Lockley) supported applying § 2K2.1(a)(2), so the original 57-month sentence should be reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Gilbert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could vacate and reduce sentence under Rule 35(a) | Rule 35(a) is narrow; but precedent supports the enhancement so vacating was improper | Court clearly erred by relying on specific facts instead of categorical approach, warranting Rule 35(a) relief | Vacatur was improper; Rule 35(a) relief not authorized because the error was not the sort that "almost certainly" requires remand |
| Whether Alabama robbery categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines (elements or enumerated clause) | Alabama robbery is substantially similar to Florida robbery and can be a crime of violence; Lockley supports enhancement | Alabama robbery does not necessarily involve the "violent, physical force" required by Curtis Johnson and thus may not categorically qualify | No binding Eleventh Circuit decision on Alabama, but Lockley and related authority make it arguable Alabama robbery does qualify; district court’s original application may have been correct despite flawed rationale |
| Proper use of categorical vs. modified categorical approach | Categorical (or, if statute divisible, modified categorical) approach governs; prior precedent may support treating robbery as categorical | Court improperly used defendant’s actual conduct to determine categorical status | Court misapplied the approach at initial sentencing (relied on facts), but that analytical error did not make the sentence susceptible to Rule 35(a) correction |
| Whether the sentencing error would "almost certainly" result in remand | Precedent (Lockley and similar cases) provide a reasonable basis to affirm the original enhancement | The factual-reliance error requires correction and remand | The error was not "obvious and acknowledged" such that Rule 35(a) relief was allowed; 57-month sentence must be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court) (elements clause requires "violent, physical force")
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (Supreme Court) (modified categorical approach / divisibility analysis)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Supreme Court) (limits on using offense facts; role of modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (Florida robbery categorically a crime of violence)
- United States v. Garcia-Martinez, 845 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir.) (applying categorical approach to Guidelines enhancements)
- United States v. Lett, 483 F.3d 782 (11th Cir.) (Rule 35(a) narrow; error must be "acknowledged and obvious")