998 F.3d 693
6th Cir.2021Background:
- Edres Montgomery was convicted in 2007 of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine base, and witness tampering; he received life plus a long concurrent term.
- First Step Act (2018) made Fair Sentencing Act changes retroactive; Montgomery moved for resentencing under the reduced Guidelines.
- At resentencing the district court recalculated Guidelines, concluded Montgomery was in Criminal History Category (CHC) VI, set ranges (292–365 months for conspiracy; district varied down) and imposed 275 and 145 months.
- Montgomery appealed, arguing the district court plainly erred by using CHC VI rather than CHC V (a recency point eliminated by a 2010 Sentencing Commission amendment).
- The Government responded that Montgomery waived his challenge or, at least, invited/forfeited it, and that any obligation to apply the corrected Guidelines range was not obvious.
- The Sixth Circuit treated Montgomery’s prior briefing as invited error, exercised its discretion to review under the interests-of-justice standard, found plain error, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing under the correct Guidelines range.
Issues:
| Issue | Montgomery's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery waived, forfeited, or invited his challenge to CHC | His challenge to CHC VI is preserved for appeal | His briefing adopted CHC VI so he waived the claim | Court: Montgomery invited the error (not an intentional waiver); review is discretionary |
| Whether invited error may be reviewed here | Review warranted because both parties assumed CHC VI and the error affects substantial rights | No review because Montgomery invited the error and obligation to correct wasn’t clear | Court: Interests of justice favor review (government equally at fault; severity of Guidelines error) |
| Whether CHC VI placement was error and obvious | Sentencing Commission removed the recency point in 2010, so CHC should be V | District court not required to recalculate de novo at a sentence-reduction hearing | Court: Error occurred and was obvious—Montgomery should be in CHC V under current Guidelines |
| Whether plain-error standard is satisfied and remedy | Error affected substantial rights and the fairness/integrity of proceedings; remand required | Even if error existed, sentence fell within correct Guidelines so no relief | Court: Plain error shown under Olano factors; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (sets standard for waiver and plain-error framework)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (Guidelines-calculation errors can seriously affect fairness and typically warrant correction)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Guidelines errors often affect substantial rights unless record shows sentence would be same)
- Barrow v. United States, 118 F.3d 482 (invited-error doctrine and when interests of justice support review)
- United States v. Jackson, 995 F.3d 476 (example of waiver where counsel expressly abandoned an objection)
- United States v. Aparco-Centano, 280 F.3d 1084 (distinguishing waiver from invited error in sentencing contexts)
- United States v. Mabee, 765 F.3d 666 (failure to object to Guidelines is forfeiture subject to plain-error review)
- United States v. Alexander, 951 F.3d 706 (First Step Act sentence-reduction hearing is not a de novo resentencing)