United States v. Lamar Clancy
24-5557
6th Cir.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Lamar Clancy participated in an armed attempted robbery at a store in Memphis, resulting in a shootout.
- Clancy was convicted in 2019 for attempted Hobbs Act robbery and for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, receiving a 243-month sentence.
- After United States v. Taylor (2022) held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c), Clancy’s firearm conviction was vacated, and he sought resentencing.
- At resentencing, the district court recalculated the Guidelines and imposed a 240-month sentence, the statutory maximum for attempted Hobbs Act robbery.
- Clancy appealed, contesting the scope of § 2255 relief, the application of a firearm enhancement, and the substantive reasonableness of his new sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Clancy's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 2255 Relief | Sentencing should be limited to vacating firearm count; keep 63 months for robbery | Entire sentence/judgment reopened upon § 2255 relief | District court must resentence on remaining count; no error |
| Firearm Enhancement Application | Only jury, not judge, can find facts for firearm enhancement | Judge can find facts for advisory Guidelines enhancements | Judge can apply enhancement if evidence supports, no error |
| Sentencing Framework Post-Booker | Court treated enhancement as mandatory; procedural error | Enhancement advisory; careful consideration given | District court followed advisory regime; no procedural error |
| Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence | Sentence too long; overweighed use of firearm, punishing vacated conviction | Sentence just; conduct and criminal history warranted upward variance | Sentence was not unreasonable; upward variance justified |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022) (attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c))
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993) (a single criminal case produces one judgment for all counts)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (jury must find facts increasing statutory minimums)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury must find facts increasing statutory maximums)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (facts relevant to Guideline calculations need not be found by a jury)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences and variances under § 3553(a))