United States v. Lawrence
398 U.S. App. D.C. 244
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- On remand after affirming one conviction, the district court re-sentenced Lawrence to 250 months under a variance from the career-offender range for distributing cocaine base.
- The PSR stated 29.6 grams of cocaine base; the district court adopted 29.6 g though the record at trial showed 21.1 g.
- Lawrence contends the quantity error and related career-offender calculation affected his sentence.
- Pending legislation (H.R. 3245) aimed at crack/powder disparity was discussed but not enacted; the district court concluded it did not affect career-offender status.
- Lawrence argued for a variance to mitigate crack/powder disparity; the district court granted a limited variance below the career-offender range.
- The court affirmed the re-sentencing, finding no error in the quantity, the pending-legislation considerations, Fifth Amendment claims, or the reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drug quantity error requires remand | Lawrence (Lawrence) argues 29.6 g misstates 21.1 g and affects range | Lawrence contends error is plain; but range overlaps; qualified as harmless | No plain error; correction would not change career-offender level (34) and range. |
| Whether denial to continue re-sentencing to await legislation was reversible | Lawrence sought continuance awaiting crack/powder disparity legislation | Legislation uncertain and not enacted; continuance improper | No abuse of discretion; remand not warranted. |
| Whether references to remorse at re-sentencing violated Fifth Amendment | Lawrence claims self-incrimination/forced remorse | References were for credibility, not punishment for lack of remorse | Not plain error; district court provided alternative justification (parole violations, credibility). |
| Whether the below-Guidelines variance was abused | Lawrence sought greater variance to lessen crack/powder disparity | Court reasonably declined full departure given policy disagreement | Court did not abuse discretion; variance supported by context and policy concerns. |
| Whether pending legislation would have altered career-offender range | Legislation could reduce disparity, lowering range | Legislation not enacted; not relevant to career-offender status | Speculative; no reversible error; variance already imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standard of review for sentencing, procedurally and substantively reasonable)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (plain-error review in sentencing context)
- In re Sealed Case, 552 F.3d 841 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (plain-error and sentencing review framework)
- United States v. Pinnick, 47 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (requirement to look beyond defense counsel’s words when interpreting district court understanding)
- United States v. Dozier, 162 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (remark on remorse and sentencing reductions under guidelines)
- United States v. Williams, 358 F.3d 967 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (discusses plain-error standards in sentencing)
- United States v. Lugg, 892 F.2d 101 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ( Fifth Amendment protection in sentencing context)