United States v. Jason J. Tyson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12366
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jason Tyson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; plea agreement stipulated a base offense level of 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) based on a prior federal heroin possession conviction and a Wisconsin burglary conviction characterized as a “crime of violence.”
- The PSR adopted that base level, recommended a total offense level of 23 after adjustments, and a Guidelines range of 92–115 months with Tyson in Criminal History Category VI.
- Tyson objected only to a two‑level stolen‑firearm enhancement in the PSR; he did not challenge the burglary’s characterization at sentencing and agreed with the Guidelines calculation at the hearing.
- The district court expressed that the Guidelines range was excessive for Tyson’s circumstances but sentenced him to 50 months’ imprisonment (below the Guideline range agreed at sentencing) and three years’ supervised release.
- After sentencing, this court decided United States v. Edwards holding Wisconsin burglary is broader than the Guidelines’ “crime of violence” definition, meaning the burglary could not serve as a § 2K2.1(a) predicate.
- Tyson appealed, arguing the burglary should not have been used to set the base offense level; the government waived any waiver defense, so the court reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tyson’s Wisconsin burglary conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a) and thus properly set the base offense level | Tyson: Edwards shows Wisconsin burglary is overbroad and cannot be a § 2K2.1(a) predicate | Government: (waived any waiver defense; argued forfeiture only) but did not contest substantive effect | Court: After Edwards, using the burglary as a predicate was plainly erroneous |
| Whether the plain‑error standard requires resentencing despite the Guidelines error | Tyson: Error likely affected substantial rights and merits resentencing | Government: (did not press waiver; argued no reversible plain error) | Court: Although error and prejudice can be assumed, reversal is inappropriate because the sentence (50 months) was 13 months below the correct Guidelines range and district judge made clear the Guidelines did not control; therefore plain‑error relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edwards, 836 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2016) (Wisconsin burglary statute broader than Guidelines "crime of violence")
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (sentencing under an incorrect Guidelines range can itself show reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error framework for appellate review of forfeited issues)
- United States v. Waldrip, 859 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2017) (waiver/forfeiture principles and treating government’s failure to press waiver as waiver of waiver defense)