United States v. Leahy
668 F.3d 18
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Leahy originally convicted of felon-in-possession of a firearm; ACCA applied due to three prior violent felonies, yielding a 15-year mandatory minimum and a guideline range of 262–327 months; on remand after ACCA error, resentencing held to remove ACCA but maintain two non-ACCA guideline enhancements (firearm in connection with another felony and obstruction of justice) and CHC V, resulting in a 120-month sentence within statutory maximum; district court affirmed enhancements and rejected defendant’s re-litigation of non-ACCA guideline issues; defendant challenges both procedural and substantive reasonableness of the resentencing; appellate standard: review for reasonableness and abuse of discretion; court affirms the 120-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement was properly applied | Leahy argues the enhancement depends on a jury finding | Leahy contends facts for enhancement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Enhancement properly applied within sentencing discretion |
| Whether obstruction of justice enhancement was plain error | Obstruction enhancement previously considered harmless due to ACCA | Without ACCA, any error could be plain error | Plain error rejected; enhancement sustained based on perjury at trial |
| Whether criminal history score was correctly computed | Points for probation-related offenses challenged | CHC could be different if points were miscounted | Harmless error; CHC remains within range and does not change outcome |
| Whether 120-month sentence is substantively reasonable given factors | Maximum sentence not justified; rehabilitation ignored | Rehabilitation and remand factors warrant lesser sentence | Within range of reasonable outcomes; articulated plausible rationale; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review; guidelines advisory post-Booker framework)
- Madera-Ortiz v. United States, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) ( governs reasonableness and procedural aspects on appeal)
- Gobbi v. United States, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (requirement to determine procedural reasonableness and accurate GSR computations)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (U.S. 2011) (rehabilitation evidence among §3553(a) factors; non-mandatory nature of guidelines)
- García-Ortiz v. United States, 657 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2011) (rehabilitation considerations; discretion in weighting factors)
- Carrasco-de-Jesús v. United States, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (variance and reasonableness in post-conviction sentencing)
- Dávila-González v. United States, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (weight given to defendant’s statements and obstruction of justice findings)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (meaning of ‘violent felony’ and ACCA considerations)
- O'Brien v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment constraints; general sentencing factors may be proven by preponderance of the evidence)
- Paneto v. United States, 661 F.3d 709 (1st Cir. 2011) (guideline application in firearms cases; connection with another felony)