United States v. Dwayne Head, 422 U.S. App. D.C. 8

Dwayne Head pled guilty in 1989 to federal drug charges and was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment plus five years of supervised release.
Head began supervised release in 2006; while on release he was convicted in D.C. Superior Court (2010) for felony threats and sentenced to 48 months.
The federal district court revoked Head’s supervised release in January 2012 and imposed a 30‑month revocation prison term to run consecutive to the D.C. sentence, stating the Guidelines “require” consecutiveness.
The Sentencing Guidelines in effect when Head committed the underlying offense (1988) were silent on whether revocation terms must run consecutively; a 1990 amendment (USSG §7B1.3(f)) later directed that revocation terms be consecutive.
Head contended (now on appeal) that the district court applied the post‑offense Guidelines, creating an Ex Post Facto violation; he did not raise that claim in the district court, so the appellate court reviewed for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Head)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the district court relied on post‑offense Sentencing Guidelines (USSG §7B1.3(f)) requiring consecutive revocation sentences, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause	The court appears to have applied the 2011/1990 Guidelines requiring consecutiveness, unlawfully increasing punishment relative to the law at the time of the offense	The court exercised legitimate discretion and would have imposed a consecutive sentence regardless, so no ex post facto violation	The record indicates the judge likely invoked the later consecutiveness rule; that created a substantial risk of increased punishment and implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause — error is present
Whether the forfeited Ex Post Facto claim warrants relief under plain‑error review	The error was plain, affected substantial rights (risk of nearly three extra years), and undermined fairness — resentencing required	Any error was harmless or reflected an independent discretionary decision, so plain‑error relief is unwarranted	The court applied Olano: the error was legal and plain, affected substantial rights, and seriously affected the proceedings’ integrity — vacated and remanded for resentencing under Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense

Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (post‑offense increased Guidelines can violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when they create a significant risk of greater punishment)
United States v. Turner, 548 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (use of later Guidelines creating substantial risk of harsher sentence violates Ex Post Facto)
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (revocation sentence is part of penalty for original offense)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review framework)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (discussion of Guidelines, departures, and sentencing discretion)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error remedial discretion where error affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation)