United States v. Dimitri Powell
708 F. App'x 294
9th Cir.2017Background
- Powell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and received the 10-year statutory maximum sentence despite a Guidelines range of 77–96 months.
- The Guidelines range was based on offense level 21 and criminal history category VI.
- The district court treated Powell’s Washington second-degree robbery conviction as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).
- The probation office recommended a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on testimony that Powell and his girlfriend fabricated stories to frustrate law enforcement.
- Powell objected to the legal conclusion that the facts supported obstruction but did not dispute the underlying facts at sentencing.
- The district court referenced unproven domestic violence allegations in the record; the court did not rely on those allegations in calculating the Guidelines range or in its stated reasons for varying from the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington second-degree robbery is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 | Powell: the statute is broader than generic robbery/extortion and therefore not a categorical match | Government: robbery is an enumerated offense and § 2K2.1 commentary incorporates § 4B1.2’s commentary, so it qualifies | Court: No plain error; robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines and binding commentary |
| Whether applying an obstruction enhancement required an evidentiary Rule 32 hearing | Powell: enhancement unsupported without a hearing on the underlying facts | Government: Powell did not contest the factual basis, only the legal conclusion | Court: No error; because Powell did not dispute facts, no Rule 32 hearing was required and enhancement was proper |
| Whether the district court relied on unproven domestic-violence allegations when sentencing | Powell: court considered and relied on unproven allegations without a Rule 32 hearing | Government: allegations did not affect Guidelines calculation or stated reasons for variance | Court: Powell failed to show sentence was based on materially incorrect information; no reversible error |
| Whether the 10-year sentence was substantively unreasonable | Powell: sentence excessive given mitigating factors | Government: long, serious criminal history supports sentence | Court: Sentence not substantively unreasonable; within district court discretion and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain-error standard for Guidelines calculation)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (binding effect of Sentencing Guidelines commentary)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (upholding vagueness analysis of Guidelines residual clause)
- United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2008) (California robbery: conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the categorical approach)
- United States v. Petri, 731 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 32 hearing not required where defendant does not contest factual basis for enhancement)
- United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2006) (sentence based on materially incorrect information standard)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. en banc 2009) (standards for reviewing substantive reasonableness of a sentence)