104 F.4th 691
8th Cir.2024Background
- Donald Shaw was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and originally sentenced in 2019 to 40 months in prison and 24 months of supervised release.
- After his first supervised release was revoked in 2022, Shaw was sentenced to an additional 8 months of imprisonment and 18 months of supervised release.
- Shaw's second term of supervised release began in January 2023; by March 2023, another petition alleged violations, including one Grade A violation (felony domestic assault with possession of a firearm) and several Grade C violations.
- At the revocation hearing, the government relied on hearsay testimony about the Grade A violation, but the district court declined to revoke on that basis, finding only Grade C violations.
- The district court sentenced Shaw to 24 months (the statutory maximum), without calculating or announcing the applicable Guidelines range for Grade C violations (8 to 14 months).
Issues
| Issue | Shaw's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court procedurally err by not calculating the Guidelines range for Grade C violations? | The court erred and failed to calculate the proper range. | No error because an upward variance to the statutory maximum was requested and understood. | Yes, this was plain procedural error warranting remand. |
| Did this error affect Shaw's substantial rights? | Error was prejudicial because a lower sentence was reasonably probable. | No prejudice; everyone understood the range would be lower than 24 months regardless. | Error was prejudicial; resentencing is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (failing to calculate the Guidelines range is procedural error)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129 (district courts must ensure Guidelines range is correctly considered)
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (sets plain error review standard for procedural errors in sentencing)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (sentencing under an incorrect Guidelines range is prejudicial and usually warrants resentencing)
- United States v. Mulverhill, 833 F.3d 925 (remand required where the district court is silent on the sentence it would have imposed absent error)