United States v. Felix Campbell
694 F. App'x 929
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Felix Ayo Campbell pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- District court calculated a Guidelines range resulting in a 60-month sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (2015) but imposed a 72-month term.
- Campbell appealed, arguing the sentence rested on an improper upward departure under USSG § 4A1.3, p.s., was unreasonable, not tailored to his case, and reflected judicial vindictiveness.
- The district court’s oral pronouncement framed the 72-month term as an upward variance justified by § 3553(a) factors (nature of offense, criminal history, deterrence, respect for law, punishment, disparity concerns).
- The written statement of reasons referenced § 4A1.3 and § 5K2.21, but the Fourth Circuit held the oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Campbell) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was an improper upward departure under USSG § 4A1.3 | Court relied on § 4A1.3 departure and failed incremental procedure | Sentence was an upward variance based on § 3553(a), not a § 4A1.3 departure | Held: It was an upward variance, not a § 4A1.3 departure |
| Whether consideration of prior federal convictions was improper | Consideration of prior federal convictions (drug and felon-in-possession) made sentence unreasonable | District court permissibly considered criminal history under § 3553(a)(1) | Held: Proper to consider prior convictions; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether 12-month variance was substantively unreasonable/not tailored | Variance not tailored; possibly vindictive | Variance suited to facts, criminal history, deterrence, and other § 3553(a) factors | Held: 12-month upward variance substantively reasonable |
| Whether sentence was motivated by judicial vindictiveness | Court was vindictive toward Campbell | No record evidence of vindictiveness; sentence explained by § 3553(a) factors | Held: No evidence of vindictiveness; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentencing)
- United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155 (4th Cir. 2008) (review of deviation from Guidelines is for reasonableness)
- United States v. McManus, 734 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2015) (deference to district court on above-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2012) (district court may accord greater weight to aggravating factors)
- United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirming substantial variance when tied to § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written materials)