United States v. Joe Willis
681 F. App'x 550
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joe Willis pleaded guilty to one count of using a communication facility to facilitate a drug offense (21 U.S.C. § 843(b)) as part of a plea agreement; three other federal counts were dismissed.
- State arrest on Dec. 2, 2014: deputies found 125.3 grams of methamphetamine in Willis’s vehicle; Willis pleaded guilty in Arkansas to possession with intent to deliver and was sentenced to 84 months.
- Superseding federal indictment had charged a conspiracy, two phone counts (§ 843(b)), and a federal possession count (§ 841); Willis pleaded to one phone count.
- PSR calculated a 48-month Guidelines range (statutory maximum for the phone count) but noted 18 months in state custody as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), yielding an adjusted recommendation of 30 months.
- The district court found the state conviction to be relevant conduct but varied upward to impose a 48-month federal sentence (to run concurrent with state time), citing concern about unwarranted disparities and a potential windfall if only 30 months were imposed.
- Willis appealed, arguing inadequate explanation, abuse of discretion in weighing factors (windfall), lack of Rule 32(h) notice for departure, and entitlement to pre‑sentence custody credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
Issues
| Issue | Willis's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court adequately explained its sentence | Court failed to adequately explain upward variance from the Guidelines/PSR | Court explained reliance on § 3553(a)(6) disparity concern and fairness to similarly situated defendants | No procedural error; explanation was sufficient |
| Whether district court abused discretion by varying upward (windfall concern) | 30‑month federal sentence concurrent with state time would not produce a windfall compared to other defendants | Willis committed an additional crime (state possession) justifying additional time; avoiding disparity with similarly situated defendants warranted variance | No abuse of discretion; upward variance permissible to avoid unwarranted disparity |
| Whether Rule 32(h) required notice of contemplated departure | Court failed to provide required notice under Rule 32(h) before increasing sentence | Adjustment was a variance, not a departure; Rule 32(h) notice not required for variances | No Rule 32(h) violation; notice not required for a variance |
| Whether Willis is entitled now to pre‑sentence custody credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) | Entitled to credit for all pre‑sentence incarceration against federal sentence | § 3585(b) credit is determined by Attorney General/BOP; issue not ripe until BOP makes a determination | Not ripe for review here; § 3585(b) credit determination is for BOP and not decided by court on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (defines significant procedural sentencing errors and review framework)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Cole, 721 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Struzik, 572 F.3d 484 (8th Cir. 2009) (explanation standard for sentencing court need not address every argument)
- United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir. 2005) (Rule 32(h) notice not required for variances)
- United States v. Westmoreland, 974 F.2d 736 (6th Cir. 1992) (§ 3585(b) credit determination is for the Attorney General/BOP and is not ripe for district court review)