United States v. Mark Coulter, 654 F. App'x 585

Defendant Mark Edward Coulter pled guilty to one count of bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery and was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment.
The district court classified Coulter as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior convictions, increasing his Guidelines range.
The Guidelines definition of "crime of violence" included a residual clause covering offenses that "otherwise involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."
While Coulter’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court in Johnson held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague, and the parties agreed this undermined Coulter’s career-offender status.
The Government argued any error was harmless because the district court stated it would have imposed the same 210-month sentence as an upward variance after considering the § 3553(a) factors.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the sentencing error was harmless and whether the 210-month upward-variance sentence was substantively reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coulter still qualifies as a career offender after Johnson	Johnson's invalidation of the residual clause means Coulter no longer qualifies	Government conceded Coulter no longer qualifies as career offender	Court accepted that Coulter does not qualify post-Johnson
Whether any error classifying Coulter as a career offender is harmless	Coulter argued error affected sentence and requires remedy	Government argued harmless because district court would have imposed same sentence based on § 3553(a)	Harmless: court was satisfied district court would have imposed same sentence absent the Guidelines classification
Whether the 210-month upward-variance sentence is substantively reasonable	Coulter implicitly argued sentence was affected by erroneous Guidelines application	Government and district court relied on § 3553(a) factors (dangerousness, deterrence, criminal history)	Court held the variance reasonable under abuse-of-discretion review
Whether remand is required for resentencing	Coulter sought relief/remand due to career-offender error	Government opposed remand as unnecessary given harmlessness	Remand denied; judgment affirmed

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard and review of variance sentences)
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (harmlessness inquiry for assumed Guidelines error)
United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (certainty standard for harmlessness of sentencing error)
United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 2011) (procedural sentencing errors subject to harmlessness review)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (harmless error doctrine applies to certain sentencing errors)
United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118 (4th Cir. 2007) (review of reasonableness for extent of a variance)
United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566 (4th Cir. 2011) (procedures regarding pro se supplemental briefing)
United States v. Jarmon, 596 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting ACCA violent-felony definition mirrors Guidelines' crime-of-violence definition)