1 F.4th 25
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- Gregory Lassiter participated in a 2008 plot to kidnap and kill Gregory Lyles; the plot involved attempted shootings and a boxcutter slashing; Lyles survived.
- Lassiter pled guilty to kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201), assault with intent to kill (D.C. law), and a § 924(c) firearm offense; the § 924(c) conviction added an 84‑month mandatory consecutive term for brandishing.
- In 2009 the district court sentenced Lassiter to a total of 324 months (240 months for kidnapping, 138 months concurrent for D.C. assault, and 84 months consecutive for § 924(c)) after a substantial downward variance on the kidnapping count.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis (2019) invalidated the § 924(c) residual clause, making kidnapping no longer a § 924(c) crime of violence; Lassiter’s § 924(c) conviction was vacated and he was resentenced in 2020.
- At resentencing the district judge concluded he had originally imposed a single "sentencing package" (crafting the kidnapping variance with the § 924(c) term in mind) and increased the kidnapping term so the new total was 300 months; Lassiter did not object below.
- Lassiter appealed, arguing (1) the judge erred in treating the original sentence as a package (thus exceeding resentencing authority), and (2) the updated PSR misapplied a four‑level enhancement for life‑threatening bodily injury in calculating the kidnapping offense level.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly treated the original sentence as a "sentencing package" allowing adjustment of the kidnapping term after vacatur of § 924(c) | Lassiter: judge did not intend a package because he never said those words at original sentencing; sentences were independent | Government: courts routinely treat § 924(c) + underlying counts as an interdependent package, and the record shows the judge imposed a total package and varied the kidnapping sentence with § 924(c) in mind | Affirmed: court finds no plain error; record (downward variance, comparative sentences for codefendants, judge’s statements) supports package intent |
| Whether the updated PSR misapplied USSG §2A2.1(b)(1)(A) (life‑threatening bodily injury) by tying it to the attempted shootings rather than the boxcutter slashing | Lassiter: enhancement cannot be based on the attempted shootings because the gun never fired and caused no injury | Government: enhancement is supported by agreed facts that a life‑threatening injury occurred and the judge expressly tied the enhancement to the boxcutter slashing | Affirmed: no plain error; judge’s original and resentencing statements show the enhancement was applied based on the boxcutter injuries |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutional)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (limits district court resentencing authority after vacatur)
- United States v. Townsend, 178 F.3d 558 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (recognizes likelihood courts craft multicount sentences as an overall plan and permits package adjustment)
- United States v. Fowler, 749 F.3d 1010 (11th Cir. 2014) (presumes § 924(c) and underlying counts form a package subject to reevaluation)
- United States v. Smith, 467 F.3d 785 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (contrasts situations where underlying counts were imposed at the top of the range and not treated as a package)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (discussed interdependence of sentencing components; cited approvingly)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (district court may consider post‑sentence rehabilitation at resentencing)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (explains plain‑error review standard)