United States v. Dayven Joseph
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10785
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Joseph, an inmate at a federal detention facility, possessed marijuana on multiple occasions and gave some to another inmate.
- Counts 1 and 2 related to the same December 2010 marijuana item; Count 1: possession, Count 2: providing to another inmate.
- Count 4 charged possession of a separate February 2011 marijuana item.
- District court imposed 24 months total: 10 months on Counts 1 and 4 and 4 months on Count 2, all consecutive, based on § 1791(c).
- PSR reflected that § 1791(c) requires consecutive sentences for offenses involving a controlled substance; no objection from Joseph.
- Court of Appeals held § 1791(c) applies only when there are multiple convictions from the same item, vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1791(c) requires consecutive sentences for all counts | GOV argues ‘such a controlled substance’ means any controlled substance. | Joseph argues ‘such’ refers to the same item of drugs across counts. | Consecutive sentences required only for same-item convictions. |
| Whether district court’s error was plain and prejudicial | Joseph contends the error was plain and affected the sentence. | Government argues error was not plain or prejudicial. | Yes, the error was plain and affected substantial rights; remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Echavarria-Escobar, 270 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2001) (statutory interpretation framework for § 1791)
- United States v. Wahid, 614 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain error standard and review of statute interpretation)
- United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (plain error standard and remedial discretion en banc)
- United States v. Castillo-Casiano, 198 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 1999) (discretionary sentencing and harmless error framework)
- United States v. Mendoza, 121 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 1997) (discretion in sentencing and remand considerations)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (S. Ct. 2011) (limits on consideration of rehabilitation in imposing imprisonment)
- Raygosa-Esparza, 566 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2009) (context for consecutive sentencing where related convictions involve same substances)
- Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009) (plain error prejudice when sentencing duration could be shortened)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1994) (statutory interpretation: give effect to all provisions)
- Williams, 659 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation and presumption of consistent use of terms)