United States v. Gregory Terrell
696 F.3d 1257
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Terrell pleaded guilty to unlawful possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii).
- District court sentenced him in 2007 to 210 months, five years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
- Terrell challenges the sentence on ex post facto grounds and on the district court’s discretion post-Booker.
- Ex post facto claim hinges on use of the post-offense Guidelines manual potentially yielding a harsher sentence than the 2002 manual.
- Discretion claim concerns the court’s belief it could not award a third point for acceptance of responsibility after amendments to § 3E1.1(b).
- Court vacates the judgment and remands for resentencing, but rejects the ex post facto argument as plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto viability | Terrell argues post-offense guidelines violated ex post facto. | Terrell contends 2005/2006 manuals could yield harsher sentence than 2002 manual. | Ex post facto claim not plainly error; remand focused on discretion. |
| Judicial discretion post-Booker | Government did not commit error; court could consider § 3553 factors and deviations. | Court erred by applying a narrow, compulsory 'compelling reasons' approach to deviate from guidelines. | District court's 'compelling reasons' approach improperly constrained discretion; remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error standard)
- United States v. Turner, 548 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (ex post facto after Booker unsettled law)
- United States v. Pickett, 475 F.3d 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (no presumptive reasonableness of Guidelines sentence)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (no presumption that Guidelines sentence is reasonable)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (limitations on presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Mouling, 557 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (plain error standard analysis)
- United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006) (post-Booker ex post facto interplay)
- United States v. Carter, 490 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2007) (ex post facto after Booker)
- United States v. Andrews, 532 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (unresolved post-Booker ex post facto issue)
- In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (safety-valve for plain error.)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (slightly less exacting prejudice standard in sentencing)