United States v. Hagen, 911 F.3d 891

Mandy Hagen pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to distribute >50 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced after consideration of her criminal history.
The district court included two prior Illinois convictions for "Guardian Allows Child Truancy" (105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26-10) in her federal Sentencing Guidelines criminal history score.
The two truancy convictions arose from: 21 unexcused days for one child (2013–14) and 18 unexcused absences for another (2015); sentences were short (total four days imprisonment, supervision, small fines) and partly stayed.
Hagen argued those convictions should be excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c), because they are "similar to" offenses the Guidelines exclude (specifically juvenile truancy or other listed offenses).
The district court rejected Hagen’s argument that the offenses were similar to juvenile truancy; it counted them, raising her criminal-history category. Hagen appealed.
The Seventh Circuit held that the truancy convictions are not excluded as similar to juvenile truancy but are similar to the listed § 4A1.2(c)(1) offense of non-support, which required exclusion given Hagen’s short sentences and lack of similarity to the instant offense; the case was reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Hagen’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether "Guardian Allows Child Truancy" convictions are excluded from criminal history under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) as "similar to" juvenile status offenses and truancy listed in § 4A1.2(c)(2).	The convictions are essentially aiding/abetting truancy and thus no more serious than juvenile truancy, so they should be excluded.	Allowing truancy by an adult guardian is more serious than juvenile truancy because adults bear higher responsibility; therefore convictions should count.	Not similar enough to juvenile truancy; convictions may be counted under that comparison.
Whether the truancy convictions are "similar to" other offenses listed in § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2) (not raised below; reviewed for plain error).	Even if not like juvenile truancy, the offenses are similar to excluded offenses (notably non-support), so they should be excluded under § 4A1.2(c)(1).	The government disputed similarity or said any error was harmless.	Plain-error review: convictions are similar to non-support (a § 4A1.2(c)(1) offense) and are less serious than non-support; because non-support is excluded absent significant sentences and Hagen’s penalties were minimal, the convictions should have been excluded. Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Garrett, 528 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing issues)
In re K.S.Y., 416 N.E.2d 736 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) (truancy proceedings are directed at custodians, not the child)