United States v. Deljuan Bankston
901 F.3d 1100
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Deljuan Bankston pleaded guilty (2015) to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and had two prior California robbery convictions (Cal. Penal Code § 211).
- The presentence report treated the California robbery convictions as "crimes of violence" under the 2015 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, increasing Bankston’s Guidelines range.
- Bankston argued the Guidelines’ "crime of violence" provision was unconstitutionally vague; the district court agreed and sentenced him at the lower calculated range in Feb. 2016; the government appealed.
- After sentencing, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 798 (effective Aug. 1, 2016), narrowing the Guidelines’ extortion definition to threats against a person (excluding threats to property).
- The Ninth Circuit held (1) under Amendment 798 California robbery no longer categorically matched the Guidelines’ robbery/extortion definitions, but (2) Amendment 798 is not retroactive to Bankston’s pre-amendment sentence, so the pre- amendment law governs his resentencing.
- The district court’s original ruling that the Guidelines were too vague was foreclosed by Beckles; the Ninth Circuit held the district court erred and remanded for resentencing under the 2015 Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Bankston's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 798 changed the meaning of "crime of violence" so that California robbery no longer qualifies | Amendment 798 narrows extortion to threats against persons, so CA robbery (which can include threats to property) is not a crime of violence | Amendment 798 indeed narrows the extortion definition and thus removes CA robbery from the categorical match | Held: Amendment 798 narrowed the extortion definition and California robbery no longer matches under the amended Guideline |
| Whether Amendment 798 applies retroactively to a sentence imposed before Aug. 1, 2016 | Bankston argued the amendment should apply and would benefit him | Government argued the amendment is substantive and not retroactive | Held: Amendment 798 is substantive, not a mere clarification, and is not retroactive to Bankston’s 2016 sentence |
| Whether the pre-amendment Guidelines were impermissibly vague or too ambiguous to be applied | Bankston contended the pre-amendment Guideline was unconstitutionally vague or too unclear to interpret | Government relied on precedent upholding Guidelines against vagueness challenges and on existing interpretation treating CA § 211 as a crime of violence | Held: Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge; the pre-amendment commentary and precedent support treating CA robbery as a crime of violence |
| Whether the district court’s error was harmless (i.e., no remand needed) | Bankston argued the sentence would be the same on remand and that the later amendment would constrain resentencing | Government argued remand is required because the Guidelines calculation error was not harmless | Held: Error was not shown harmless; remand for resentencing under the 2015 Guidelines is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishing the categorical approach)
- United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2008) (held CA robbery matched generic robbery or extortion under pre- amendment law)
- United States v. Edling, 895 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2018) (read Amendment 798 to narrow extortion to threats against persons)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under Due Process)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness; influenced analysis of residual clauses)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explaining divisible statutes and the modified categorical approach)