United States v. Johnson
681 F. App'x 52
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Whykee Johnson pleaded guilty to escaping federal custody and was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment.
- At sentencing, the district court ordered Johnson’s federal escape sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged 2015 state sentence (18 months–3 years) for possession of a firearm.
- Johnson argued on appeal that the district court procedurally erred by applying U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a) (which mandates consecutive sentences when the instant offense was committed while serving a term) rather than § 5G1.3(d) (which permits discretion to run concurrent or consecutive).
- Johnson had not preserved the procedural challenge; the Court reviewed for plain error.
- The district court stated it was following § 5G1.3(a) but also demonstrated awareness that the Guidelines are advisory post-Booker and explained its independent reasoning for imposing a consecutive sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by applying § 5G1.3(a) instead of § 5G1.3(d) | Government: sentence was proper and within court’s discretion | Johnson: court used wrong guideline subsection and thus lost discretion to consider a concurrent sentence | No plain error; even if wrong subsection applied, no prejudice because court knew Guidelines were advisory and exercised independent discretion to impose consecutive sentence |
| Whether plain‑error review is satisfied by the asserted Guidelines misapplication | Government: plain‑error standard not met | Johnson: argues Molina‑Martinez permits showing plain error from Guidelines misapplication | Court: Johnson cannot show prejudice; sentencing record shows court would have imposed same consecutive sentence regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 359 (2d Cir. 2013) (discussing preserved vs. plain‑error review for sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain‑error framework requirements)
- United States v. Chu, 714 F.3d 742 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements of procedural reasonableness in sentencing)
- Keeling v. Hars, 809 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2015) (prejudice requirement under plain‑error review)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (reasonable‑probability standard for showing prejudice on appeal)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding the Sentencing Guidelines advisory)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (discussing when an incorrect Guidelines range can show prejudice)
- Bishop v. Wells Fargo & Co., 823 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2016) (waiver principles regarding challenges to Guidelines application)