United States v. McGhee
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12677
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- McGhee was convicted of July 2006 drug offenses and designated a career offender under §4B1.1 based in part on a prior Massachusetts youthful offender adjudication.
- The First Circuit previously affirmed the conviction and sentence, citing Torres to support counting a pre-18 offense for career offender status.
- McGhee petitioned for panel rehearing and en banc review to challenge Torres; the government conceded Torres was incorrect, and the en banc request was dismissed as moot.
- Torres treated a pre-18 offense as countable for career offender status via cross-references in § 4B1.1 and § 4A1.2, leading to the belief that state labels did not control; this approach is now questioned.
- Massachusetts law distinguishes youthful offenders from adult convictions; McGhee’s youthful offender adjudication was not classified as an adult conviction under Massachusetts law, negating it as a career offender predicate.
- The district court erred by treating McGhee as a career offender under Torres; the sentence (96 months after reductions) is subject to remand for resentencing due to potential non-harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether youthful offender adjudication counts as an adult conviction for career offender status | McGhee argues MA youthful offender is not an adult conviction under §4B1.2 | Government argued Torres supports counting by cross-reference but defends alternative grounds | No; youthful offender adjudication is not an adult conviction for career offender purposes |
| Whether the career offender designation was harmless error | Error may have affected sentence even if designation differed | District court’s calculation and reasoning may render the error harmless | Remand for resentencing required to determine impact of the error |
| Whether Torres should remain controlling law in this circuit | Torres misread the interaction of 4B1.1 and 4A1.2 provisions | Torres remains persuasive authority on calculation of criminal history points | Torres is no longer controlling for this circuit; McGhee not bound by Torres on the career offender predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. United States, 541 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2008) (held pre-18 offenses can count for career offender via 4B1.2 cross-reference)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (harmless error standard governs post-appeal remand decisions)
- Teague v. United States, 469 F.3d 205 (1st Cir. 2006) (district court error on career offender designation may be harmless or remandable depending on record)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (statutory guidelines commentary binding unless unconstitutional or inconsistent)