United States v. Joseph Olivo
691 F. App'x 826
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joseph Olivo pled guilty to marijuana distribution offenses and firearm offenses; the district court classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and sentenced him to 292 months.
- The career-offender designation relied in part on prior convictions that the Sentencing Guidelines treated as "crimes of violence" via the guideline's residual clause.
- The Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague; the Seventh Circuit later held that Johnson’s reasoning applies to the Guidelines' parallel residual clause.
- Some of Olivo’s prior convictions qualify as crimes of violence only under the now-invalid residual clause (e.g., resisting law enforcement by flight; reckless conduct).
- The parties agreed that if Johnson’s holding applies to the Guidelines, the district court must reassess whether Olivo remains a career offender and whether that affected his sentence.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated Olivo’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because it is unclear whether the career-offender classification influenced the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause applies to the Guidelines' residual clause | Government: the court should apply existing precedent (Hurlburt/McGuire) recognizing Johnson applies to the Guidelines | Olivo: prior convictions that only qualified under the residual clause no longer count; career-offender status may be invalid | The Seventh Circuit applied Hurlburt/McGuire: Johnson’s reasoning applies to the Guidelines' residual clause |
| Whether Olivo’s prior convictions still qualify as crimes of violence for career-offender status | Government: at least two prior felonies qualify | Olivo: at least two relied solely on the residual clause and thus no longer qualify post-Johnson | The court agreed some prior convictions no longer qualify, requiring reassessment |
| Whether the sentencing error affected Olivo’s substantial rights (plain-error review) | Government: sentencing judge may not have been influenced by the career-offender range | Olivo: improper guidelines calculation likely influenced sentence | Because the record did not show the judge was uninfluenced, the court could not presume no effect; vacatur and remand for resentencing required |
| Remedy: vacate and remand or affirm | Government: remand for resentencing consistent with Hurlburt/McGuire | Olivo: seek vacatur and resentencing | Court vacated the sentence and remanded for full resentencing to allow reassessment of career-offender status and sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Hurlburt, 835 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Johnson applies to Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause; remand for resentencing under plain-error review)
- United States v. McGuire, 835 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2016) (applied Hurlburt framework; remanded for resentencing)
- Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (2011) (holding resisting law enforcement by flight qualified under ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Clinton, 591 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2010) (criminal recklessness can only qualify under a residual-clause theory)