United States v. Kevin Denard Rozier
685 F. App'x 847
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Rozier was convicted of two counts of distributing cocaine (counts 5 & 6, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (count 20, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- Original sentence: 20 years on counts 5 & 6 (concurrent) and life on count 20 (concurrent). After post-conviction relief and resentencings, the district court ultimately imposed a package sentence totaling 40 years (consecutive and partially concurrent components) at a 2015 resentencing following a successful § 2255 vacatur for lack of allocution.
- Rozier appealed the 2015 sentence, raising five main arguments: (1) district court lacked authority to alter counts 5 & 6 after a § 2241 challenge to only count 20, (2) improper use of the 2011 PSI and error under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d), (3) incorrect Guidelines calculations (firearm enhancement, use of acquitted/dismissed conduct, role enhancement, career-offender status), (4) procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the sentence, and (5) alleged judicial bias requiring remand to a different judge.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed jurisdictional and law‑of‑the‑case issues de novo, and other challenges under either de novo or plain‑error review depending on whether Rozier preserved objections at sentencing.
- The court affirmed: it found the counts interdependent (sentencing package), no plain error in use of the 2011 PSI or § 5G1.2(d) application, Guidelines rulings were either law‑of‑the‑case or not prejudicial, and the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Authority to resentence all counts after § 2241 relief limited to gun count | Rozier: district court lacked authority to change drug counts because his § 2241 challenged only count 20; prior rulings interdependence was erroneous | Government: counts were interdependent; law-of-the-case binds court to prior determination that sentences formed a package | Held: Affirmed jurisdiction. Prior rulings found interdependence; law-of-the-case applies; no manifest injustice shown |
| 2. Use of 2011 PSI and § 5G1.2(d) (consecutive sentencing) | Rozier: 2011 PSI outdated (career-offender changes, dismissed convictions), § 5G1.2(d) limits consecutive time to low end of range; court failed to verify he read PSI | Government: no preserved objection; plain‑error review fails because changes wouldn’t have altered outcome; §5G1.2(d) doesn’t limit to low‑end; court asked counsel about PSI | Held: No plain error. Use of 2011 PSI did not prejudice Rozier; court permissibly imposed partially consecutive sentence under §5G1.2(d) |
| 3. Guidelines calculation errors (firearm enhancement; acquitted/dismissed conduct; role; career offender) | Rozier: court misapplied enhancements and relied on dismissed/acquitted conduct; career-offender status improper | Government: most objections were previously raised and are barred by law‑of‑the‑case; career-offender challenge forfeited and non-prejudicial because drug amount drove offense level | Held: No error. Law‑of‑the‑case bars re-litigation; career-offender designation, even if challenged for first time, did not affect substantial rights |
| 4. Procedural and substantive reasonableness; recusal/remand for different judge | Rozier: court failed to consider mitigating §3553(a) factors adequately; sentence greater than necessary; alleged pervasive bias | Government: sentencing record shows consideration of §3553(a) factors; sentence within Guidelines and below statutory max; no reversible error | Held: Sentence reasonable. No plain error procedurally or substantively; no basis to remand for a different judge; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fowler, 749 F.3d 1010 (11th Cir. 2014) (sentencing-package doctrine permits resentencing on all counts when convictions are interdependent)
- United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case doctrine and its exceptions)
- United States v. Quintana, 300 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2002) (manifest injustice equated with plain error framework)
- United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (no plain error where no controlling precedent resolves issue)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence reasonableness; procedural and substantive review framework)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (brief explanation of reasons for sentence may be sufficient when record shows consideration of §3553(a) factors)