893 F.3d 935
6th Cir.2018Background
- Montgomery, on supervised release after a 2013 federal conviction (felon in possession of ammunition), was charged in 2016 with multiple violations including possession/use of marijuana.
- The probation officer and government classified the marijuana possession as a Grade B supervised-release violation (punishable by >1 year), producing a recommended range of 21–27 months.
- Montgomery admitted using a controlled substance but contested classification: he argued the possession should be Grade C because he was not charged under the federal recidivist provision (21 U.S.C. § 844) and thus the one-year basic maximum should control.
- He relied on Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder and 21 U.S.C. § 851 to argue courts cannot treat uncharged statutory enhancements as increasing the ‘‘punishable’’ maximum for grading violations.
- The district court accepted the Grade B classification (citing authority including United States v. Crace) and sentenced Montgomery to 21 months; Montgomery appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a supervised‑release violation may be graded by reference to a statutory recidivist maximum that was not invoked at the underlying criminal prosecution | Montgomery: Carachuri‑Rosendo and § 851 bar consideration of hypothetical/enhancement maxima; only the punishment actually imposed or charged controls (Grade C) | Government: Guidelines and precedent permit considering conduct and applicable statutory punishments (including recidivist maxima) when grading violations (Grade B) | Court: Affirmed Grade B; § 851 does not apply to revocation proceedings and Guidelines permit assessing ‘‘conduct’’ and punishability, including recidivist enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (Supreme Court 2010) (statutory text and § 851 require government to file notice before using prior convictions to enhance federal sentence; conviction—not hypothetical charge—controls for immigration aggravated‑felony analysis)
- United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2000) (considering a defendant’s prior conviction in grading a supervised‑release violation did not impermissibly double count)
- United States v. Wynn, 786 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2015) (§ 851 does not apply to supervised‑release revocation; courts may consider defendant’s criminal history and conduct when grading violations)