United States v. Keondrae Neely
683 F. App'x 918
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Neely pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence; sentenced to 240 months imprisonment (below guideline range of 271–308 months).
- Presentence report classified Neely as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on multiple prior convictions that the probation office treated as falling within the guidelines’ residual clause.
- The guidelines’ residual clause (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)) was challenged as unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States.
- After Neely’s sentencing, the Sentencing Commission amended the guidelines (Amend. 798) to delete the residual clause; Neely argued that amendment should apply retroactively or be treated as clarifying.
- Neely also asserted the district court erred by denying a mitigating-role reduction and by applying a reckless-endangerment enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Neely's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4B1.2(a)(2) residual clause is void for vagueness such that Neely cannot be a career offender | Johnson renders the residual clause void; therefore Neely’s prior convictions cannot support career-offender status | Beckles precludes vagueness challenges to the advisory Guidelines’ residual clause; the clause remains valid for sentencing | Rejected Neely’s vagueness challenge; Beckles controls and the Guidelines are not subject to vagueness attack |
| Whether the Commission’s 2016 amendment (Amend. 798) deleting the residual clause is a clarifying change that should be applied retroactively | The amendment is clarifying and should be applied on appeal to invalidate the career-offender classification | The amendment is substantive, not retroactive; factors (text change, Commission language, omission from §1B1.10(d)) show it is nonretroactive | Amendment is substantive and not retroactive; district court correctly applied the pre-amendment guideline language |
| Whether Neely was entitled to a mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | Neely argued he played a minor/mitigating role and deserved a reduction | As a career offender, Neely is ineligible for a mitigating-role reduction; career-offender status controls offense level calculation | Court did not reach merits; held Neely is precluded from reduction because he is a career offender |
| Whether applying a reckless-endangerment enhancement was reversible error | Neely contended the enhancement was improper | Even without the enhancement, as a career offender convicted of an offense carrying life, his offense level would be 34 after acceptance points | Any error in applying the enhancement was harmless; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitson, 597 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing career-offender classification)
- United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003) (career offenders ineligible for mitigating-role reductions)
- United States v. Rubio, 317 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2003) (harmless-error analysis for sentencing guideline errors)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines framework)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (discussion of residual-clause issues in this circuit)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (holding vagueness challenges do not apply to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines)