United States v. Lewis Powell
679 F. App'x 460
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Powell pled guilty in 2014 to conspiracy to distribute heroin and crack and to dealing in unlicensed firearms; the district court designated him a career offender and sentenced him to 155 months.
- This Court reversed the career-offender designation in United States v. Powell, 798 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2015), and calculated a lower Guidelines range, concluding the career-offender error was not harmless and vacated the sentence.
- On remand, the district court and the government discovered errors in this Court’s interim Guidelines calculation: Powell’s adjusted offense level without the career-offender enhancement was 32 (not 33), and Amendment 782 did not apply because the firearm count had a higher base level, producing a final Guidelines range of 130–162 months.
- The district court resentenced Powell to 155 months (the same term) and Powell appealed, arguing the remand was limited and that the district court exceeded the scope of remand; he also asserted the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to explain its decision.
- This Court held the remand was general (so the district court could redo sentencing), rejected the law-of-the-case argument, but found Powell’s failure-to-explain objection merited vacatur under plain-error review because the district court did not address a nonfrivolous mitigation argument and its earlier explanations at the first sentencing did not justify a near-top-of-Guidelines sentence on remand.
- The Court vacated Powell’s sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Powell) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remand from this Court was limited or general | Remand was limited by this Court’s Guidelines calculation and bound the district court | Remand was general; the district court could fully redo sentencing | Remand was general; presumption favors general remand absent explicit limits |
| Whether this Court’s prior Guidelines calculation was law of the case binding the district court | The appellate calculation controlled proceedings on remand | A general remand "wipes the slate clean" and does not bind the district court | Law-of-the-case argument rejected; general remand permits full resentencing |
| Whether the district court exceeded scope of remand by recalculating Guidelines | Recalculation exceeded the scope implied by the prior opinion | Recalculation was permissible on a general remand and necessary to correct errors | Recalculation was within scope because remand was general |
| Whether the 155-month sentence on remand was procedurally reasonable | Court failed to acknowledge/explain rejection of Powell’s nonfrivolous mitigation argument (prior misdemeanors) | Court incorporated earlier comments and that justified the sentence | Sentence vacated for plain error: court did not adequately explain why it imposed a near-top-of-Guidelines sentence on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Powell, 798 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal reversing career-offender designation and remanding for resentencing)
- United States v. McFalls, 675 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing general versus limited remands)
- United States v. Helton, 349 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2003) (presumption that remand is general unless specified)
- United States v. Obi, 542 F.3d 148 (6th Cir. 2008) (language "consistent with this opinion" effects a general remand)
- United States v. Brinley, 684 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2012) (sentencing-explanation standards)
- United States v. Taylor, 800 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review when defendant did not object at sentencing)
- United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (6th Cir. 2010) (district court must reflect consideration of and explain rejection of nonfrivolous mitigation arguments)