United States v. Lynce Foster
765 F.3d 610
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2006 police stopped a truck driven by Lynce Foster; officers found two pistols and cocaine (225.8 g) outside the truck and linked the drugs to a January 29, 2006 robbery. Foster was later indicted on six counts: conspiracy and two drug-possession counts, two § 924(c) firearm counts, and a felon‑in‑possession count.
- A jury convicted Foster on all six counts. The district court aggregated drug counts to produce a Guidelines range, applied various enhancements and career‑offender status, and imposed a net sentence of 622 months: concurrent terms on the drug/conspiracy/felon‑in‑possession counts (highest 262 months; 120 months on one concurrent count), and mandatory consecutive § 924(c) terms of 60 and 300 months.
- On appeal the parties agreed Counts 4 (Feb. 5, 2006 drug possession) and 5 (Feb. 5, 2006 § 924(c) firearm) were multiplicitous/duplicative of Counts 2 and 3 (the Jan. 29, 2006 drug and related § 924(c) counts) and thus violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The government sought a general remand permitting the district court to resentence the remaining counts (potentially increasing punishment); Foster opposed resentencing of the non‑duplicative counts.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated Counts 4 and 5 but refused to remand for resentencing on the four remaining counts because (1) Count 4’s 120‑month concurrent term could not support increasing remaining sentences, and (2) the district court expressly declined to consider Count 5’s consecutive § 924(c) term when fashioning the drug‑count sentences, so vacatur of Count 5 could not justify reopening the other sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts 4 and 5 are multiplicitous and violate Double Jeopardy | Gov't concedes the Feb. 5, 2006 cocaine and firearm convictions duplicate Jan. 29 conduct and should be vacated | Foster argued they were duplicative (agreed) | Court vacated Counts 4 and 5 as multiplicitous under Double Jeopardy |
| Whether vacatur of duplicative counts requires resentencing on remaining counts | Gov't: appellate remand should be general so district court may revisit (and possibly increase) remaining sentences | Foster: opposes resentencing; would waive right to resentencing | Court declined general remand; no resentencing of remaining counts because vacatur cannot logically increase punishment or the district court did not rely on the vacated counts |
| Whether concurrent sentence vacatur (Count 4) permits adjustment of remaining concurrent sentences | Gov't urged remand to permit recalculation | Foster opposed resentencing | Court: vacatur of a concurrent term that ran with equal/greater sentences cannot provide basis to increase remaining sentences; no remand |
| Whether vacatur of a mandatory consecutive § 924(c) term (Count 5) permits resentencing of other counts | Gov't: interdependence of § 924(c) and drug sentences can require resentencing | Foster: opposes resentencing; district court explicitly refused to consider § 924(c) term when imposing drug sentences | Court: because district court expressly declined to rely on Count 5 when sentencing remaining counts, vacatur of Count 5 cannot justify resentencing; no remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. United States, 568 F.2d 509 (6th Cir. 1978) (double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense)
- Sims v. United States, 975 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir. 1992) (vacatur of duplicative § 924(c) convictions where firearm conviction duplicates other conduct)
- Campbell v. United States, 168 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 1999) (discussing presumption as to scope of remand when sentence calculations are ambiguous)
- McFalls v. United States, 675 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2012) (remand-scope principles where appellate correction may affect sentencing)
- Pasquarille v. United States, 130 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir. 1997) (district court may need to revisit sentences when they are interdependent)
- United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 1996) (analyzed when § 924(c) convictions and drug sentences are interdependent under Guidelines)
- Atehortua v. United States, 69 F.3d 679 (2d Cir. 1995) (risk of unraveling interdependent guideline calculations when some counts are overturned)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (resentencing may consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation, illustrating potential downside of general remand)