United States v. Frederick Garner
712 F. App'x 572
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Frederick Garner was convicted of drug distribution (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and of possessing a firearm in furtherance of those offenses (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Garner has been resentenced multiple times; this appeal arises from his second resentencing where the district court imposed 151 months for the drug convictions and a consecutive 60 months for § 924(c).
- At that resentencing the district judge, following this circuit’s precedent in United States v. Roberson, determined the 151-month sentence for the predicate crimes independently of the mandatory consecutive 60-month § 924(c) term.
- After that resentencing, the Supreme Court decided Dean v. United States, clarifying that a district court may consider the mandatory consecutive § 924(c) term when determining the sentence for the predicate offense.
- Because Dean supersedes Roberson, the parties agreed Garner must be resentenced so the district court can consider the convictions holistically — but the court must first determine whether Roberson likely affected the original sentencing choice.
- The district judge’s statements (noting Garner’s good behavior, expressing that Garner might be done with the criminal law, and choosing the bottom of the guidelines for concurrent sentences while saying the 60 months would be added) suggested the judge might have imposed a lower overall term had he known he could account for the § 924(c) term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dean requires remand to allow the district court to consider the § 924(c) consecutive term when resentencing the predicate offenses | Dean supersedes Roberson; remand is required so the district court can consider both convictions together | Agreed remand is required (parties conceded Dean supersedes Roberson) | Remand required under Dean to allow holistic sentencing consideration |
| Whether the record shows Roberson caused a longer total sentence such that remand would be unnecessary | The record indicates the judge might have imposed a lower total sentence if he could offset the § 924(c) term; remand is appropriate | Argues the sentence was reasonable regardless of Roberson (implied) | Court remanded because judge’s remarks and bottom-of-guidelines choice suggest he might have chosen a lower overall sentence if he had been able to consider the § 924(c) term |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. United States, 808 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior appellate proceedings in Garner’s case)
- United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding district courts should not consider § 924(c) mandatory consecutive term when sentencing predicate offenses)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (Supreme Court held district courts may consider the § 924(c) mandatory consecutive term when sentencing predicate offenses)
- United States v. Wheeler, 857 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2017) (discussing when remand is unnecessary because the record makes it "inconceivable" the judge would have imposed a lower sentence)