89 F.4th 565
6th Cir.2023Background
- Kejuan Pharrell Carter pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine after selling approximately 320 grams to an undercover officer in 2022.
- His advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 108 to 135 months; he received the minimum of 108 months.
- Carter, in a sentencing memo, requested a downward variance, arguing the Guidelines' emphasis on drug quantity and purity unduly punished low-level offenders given modern drug market changes; he also cited his personal history and willingness to reform.
- At sentencing, Carter primarily focused arguments on his background; his policy-based argument was only briefly mentioned.
- After sentencing, the court asked if all non-frivolous arguments had been addressed and Carter, through counsel, agreed; no further objections on the policy argument were raised.
- Carter appealed, arguing the district court failed to address his policy argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by not addressing Carter’s policy argument for a downward variance? | The court did not address a non-frivolous, clearly presented argument, requiring resentencing. | Carter either waived or invited any error by agreeing arguments were addressed. | Carter either waived or invited error, and no manifest injustice ensued; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (defining waiver and forfeiture in criminal procedure)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (standards for reasonableness and explanation at sentencing)
- United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (district court must generally address clearly presented and disputed arguments)
- United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural error includes failing to adequately explain a sentence)
- United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (announces procedural rule for post-sentence objections)