United States v. Jamal Reid
665 F. App'x 224
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Reid pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute ≥1 kg heroin (21 U.S.C. § 846) and to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- His plea agreement stipulated to a Guidelines offense level of 35 and waived most appellate rights except challenges to criminal history category.
- The Probation Office classified Reid as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), calculating a base offense level of 34 and criminal history category VI, based in part on a prior eluding conviction treated as a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines’ residual clause (§ 4B1.2(a)).
- The District Court imposed a 154‑month sentence within an advisory Guidelines range affected by that career‑offender designation.
- While Reid’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court in Johnson held ACCA’s residual clause void for vagueness; this Court in Calabretta held the identical Guidelines residual clause in § 4B1.2 invalid.
- Reid argued his sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because his career‑offender status rested on the now‑invalid residual clause; the Government conceded the sentence was unconstitutional under Calabretta.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reid’s sentence should be vacated because his career‑offender designation relied on the § 4B1.2 residual clause | Reid: Career‑offender status (and resulting CHC VI) depended on the invalid residual clause; sentencing must be vacated and remanded for resentencing | Govt: Review should be for plain error because Reid did not object below; argues Reid fails plain‑error showing | Court: Vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing; rejected Govt’s plain‑error defense given concession and Calabretta |
| Whether the new rule (invalidating § 4B1.2 residual clause) applies retroactively to cases on direct review | Reid: Johnson/Calabretta apply retroactively to cases on direct review | Govt: did not contest retroactivity in light of Calabretta | Court: Applied Griffith retroactivity principle; new rule governs this pending appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Calabretta, 831 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2016) (Guidelines § 4B1.2 residual clause invalid under Johnson)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new rules apply retroactively to cases on direct review)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain‑error review standard)