United States v. Fernando Martinez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8051
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Martinez, age 27, pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥50g methamphetamine and faced sentencing in federal court.
- A PSIR designated him a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 based on two teenage convictions: (1) unlawful discharge of a firearm (drive-by shooting) and (2) felony escape from arrest (he elbowed and ran from officers); career-offender status increased his guidelines by ~9 years.
- At sentencing the district court found the escape conviction qualified as a "crime of violence" under the Guideline residual clause, making Martinez a career offender; it set a guideline range of 262–327 months and sentenced him to 262 months.
- The district court alternatively stated it would impose the same 262-month sentence even if Martinez were not technically a career offender (i.e., it would vary upward).
- After briefing, the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson (invalidating an identically worded residual clause in the ACCA) prompted concession by the government that Martinez’s escape no longer qualifies under the Guidelines’ residual clause; Martinez preserved a vagueness challenge to the Guidelines.
- The Eighth Circuit considered whether the district court’s alternative upward variance made the Guidelines error harmless or whether the alternative sentence was substantively unreasonable and therefore required resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez preserved a vagueness challenge to the Guidelines’ residual clause | Martinez timely raised and briefed that treating his escape as a crime of violence could raise constitutional vagueness issues | Government did not dispute preservation | Held: Preserved — review for harmless error applies |
| Whether the escape conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines post-Johnson | Escape does not qualify under the residual clause; thereby he is not a career offender | Government conceded post-Johnson that the escape conviction no longer qualifies under the residual clause | Held: Government concedes it does not qualify post-Johnson |
| Whether the district court’s alternative upward variance to 262 months was substantively reasonable so as to render the Guidelines error harmless | The alternative sentence was substantively unreasonable and unsupported by law/record; variance of ~9 years above the top of the non-career guideline range is excessive | The district court explicitly would have imposed the same sentence; thus any Guidelines error was harmless | Held: Alternative sentence unreasonable and unsupported; error not harmless — vacate and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Taylor, 803 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2015) (assumed without deciding that Johnson applies to Guidelines’ residual clause)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining preservation of Booker-type guideline challenges)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court must justify the extent of a variance under § 3553(a))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (variance must be supported by sufficiently compelling justification; review standards for reasonableness)