582 F. App'x 528
5th Cir.2014Background
- Ross, Reece, Hewitt, and Runnels were convicted by jury of armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, possession of firearms during and in relation to violent crimes, felon-in-possession of a firearm, kidnapping, and assault on a federal officer.
- At resentencing, Ross received 3425 months, Reece 1080 months, Hewitt 3660 months; Runnels received 25 life sentences (12 consecutive) plus a 120-month felon-in-possession sentence.
- Runnels argued Alleyne requires jury-found facts for mandatory life sentences; standard of plain error review applied due to lack of district court objection.
- Hewitt sought a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on cooperation, plea bargain rejection, and meritless original charges; district court invoked the mandate rule and declined.
- Ross, Reece, and Hewitt argued the district court failed to consider post-incarceration rehabilitation under Pepper; the court found rehabilitation was considered.
- The sentences were within guideline ranges and presumptively reasonable under applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne requires jury fact-finding for mandatory life sentences. | Runnels. | Runnels. | No plain-error; Alleyne does not require jury findings for prior conviction seriousness in §3559(c); affirmed. |
| Whether the district court erred by not reducing Hewitt's sentence for acceptance of responsibility under the remand mandate. | Hewitt. | Hewitt. | Abandoned claim; mandate rule applied; no reversible error found. |
| Whether the district court committed significant procedural error by failing to consider rehabilitation under Pepper. | Ross, Reece, Hewitt. | United States. | Record shows court considered rehabilitation; no plain error in weighing §3553(a) factors. |
| Whether the within-guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable and unreviewable for substantive error absent objection. | All defendants. | United States. | Within-guidelines sentences presumptively reasonable; no abuse of discretion shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court 2013) (requires factual findings for mandatory minimums in some contexts)
- United States v. Salazar, 542 F.3d 139 (5th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for forfeited errors)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 2009) (forfeiture-based plain-error framework)
- United States v. Hamilton, 440 F.3d 693 (5th Cir. 2006) (mandate-rule applicability on remand)
- United States v. Thibodeaux, 211 F.3d 910 (5th Cir. 2000) (abandonment of claims not challenged on appeal)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2012) (within-guidelines sentences presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (within-guidelines presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008) (within-guidelines presumptively reasonable)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (Supreme Court 2011) (requires reviewing rehabilitation considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))