United States v. Jazzman Rickeem Brown
879 F.3d 1231
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Brown, convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), was originally sentenced to 180 months under the ACCA based on three predicate Florida convictions.
- After Johnson v. United States, Brown moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing one predicate (fleeing/eluding) no longer qualified as a violent felony.
- The government agreed; the District Court granted the § 2255 motion, vacated the ACCA-based 180-month sentence, and without a hearing "corrected" the sentence to 120 months (the statutory maximum under the non-ACCA statute).
- The District Court held no resentencing hearing, provided no explanation for the upward variance above the corrected guideline range (77–96 months), and denied Brown’s requests for a hearing and reconsideration.
- Brown appealed; the Eleventh Circuit consolidated his § 2255 and criminal appeals and granted a COA on whether he was entitled to a resentencing hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion by modifying Brown’s sentence under § 2255 without a resentencing hearing | Brown: vacating the original sentence undermined the entire sentencing package and required a resentencing hearing with him present and able to allocute | Government: court could "correct" the sentence to 120 months without a hearing; no resentencing required | Court: abused its discretion — Brown was entitled to a resentencing hearing with presence and allocution |
| Whether a court may summarily "correct" rather than "resentence" when § 2255 vacates the original judgment | Brown: correction limited; when the error undermines the whole sentence, a full resentencing is required | Government: § 2255 permits correction without full resentencing in some cases | Court: distinguishes "correction" (narrow) from "resentencing" (broad); when error undermines the whole sentence or court must exercise new discretion, resentencing is required |
| Whether imposing an unexplained upward variance without a hearing violated sentencing procedure | Brown: upward variance exceeded guideline range and required § 3553(a) consideration and explanation; hearing necessary to allow mitigation and challenge | Government: noneffective argument for summary correction and no hearing | Court: imposed 120-month upward variance without explanation or hearing; lack of § 3553(c)(2) explanation and denial of opportunity to allocute is error |
| Whether presence/allocution rights under Rule 43 and Due Process require a hearing when sentence is modified | Brown: Rule 43 and Due Process guarantee presence at critical stages including resentencing that materially changes the sentence | Government: argued no presence required for limited corrections | Court: Rule 43 and Stincer require presence when modification is a critical stage that affects fairness; here presence was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Supreme Court decision prompting § 2255 challenge to ACCA predicates)
- Jackson v. United States, 923 F.2d 1494 (11th Cir. 1991) (resentencing hearing required when entire sentencing package vacated unless modification is non-onerous correction)
- Parrish v. United States, 427 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2005) (no hearing required where court reinstated the exact same sentence and exercised no new discretion)
- Stincer v. Kentucky, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (Due Process right to be present at critical stages that affect fairness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (upward variances require serious consideration and stated justification)
- United States v. Palmer, 854 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (distinguishing "correction" from "resentencing" in § 2255 context)