United States v. Michael Bernard Lawson
20-14776
| 11th Cir. | Jan 14, 2022Background
- In April 2019 Lawson sold crack cocaine to undercover officers and a confidential informant on four occasions; on two occasions he also sold firearms (including a pistol and a short‑barreled shotgun) and ammunition.
- Lawson pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing cocaine base and two counts of possessing firearms as a felon.
- Probation recommended career‑offender treatment based on two prior Florida felonies: a 2011 aggravated assault of an officer (crime of violence) and a 2004 conviction for sale/possession/delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship; the 2004 charging document contained a typographical statutory reference.
- The PSR applied a four‑level §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony, producing an adjusted guideline offense level that made career‑offender status applicable (leading to a 188–235 month range).
- The district court overruled Lawson’s objections (career‑offender, firearm enhancement, sentencing‑factor manipulation, constitutional challenges) and sentenced him to 120 months (well below the guideline range).
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed but remanded to correct a clerical error in the judgment (Count 4 did not charge possession of ammunition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Career‑offender classification under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 | Shepard documents are inconsistent (typographical statute citation) and do not plainly show conviction under Fla. Stat. §893.13(1)(e)(1) | Court records plainly identify the offense as sale/possession/delivery of cocaine within 1,000 ft. of a place of worship; typographical error is harmless | Affirmed: Shepard documents speak plainly to the conviction; prior offense is a controlled‑substance offense for career‑offender purposes |
| §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) firearm enhancement | Firearms sold were unrelated to drug distribution and did not facilitate the drug offense | Firearms were sold during drug transactions and thus were in close proximity to drugs, so enhancement applies automatically | Affirmed: enhancement proper because guns were in close proximity to drugs |
| Sentencing‑factor manipulation / outrageous government conduct | Law enforcement continued buys and escalated to firearms instead of arresting after first sale, and defendant was on community control—this is extraordinary misconduct that should be filtered out | Multiple buys and escalation are not extraordinary; courts may conduct multiple buys to build a case | Affirmed: no extraordinary misconduct shown; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Eighth Amendment / substantive due process | 120‑month sentence is grossly disproportionate and violates substantive due process | Sentence is non‑capital and well below the statutory maximum (30 years); within prosecutorial/sentencing discretion | Affirmed: sentence not grossly disproportionate; Fifth Amendment arguments abandoned/forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits documents courts may consult to identify elements of prior convictions)
- Spaho v. United States Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2016) (§893.13 divisible; modified categorical approach applies)
- Gandy v. United States, 917 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2019) (Shepard documents must speak plainly to conviction elements)
- Bishop v. United States, 940 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2019) (review of firearm‑in‑connection‑with‑another‑felony findings; proximity concept)
- Govan v. United States, 293 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2002) (multiple small undercover buys do not necessarily constitute improper manipulation)
- Haile v. United States, 685 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (no sentencing‑factor manipulation where undercover escalated to guns)
- Ciszkowski v. United States, 492 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for sentencing‑factor manipulation/outrageous conduct)
- Suarez v. United States, 893 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2018) (narrow Eighth Amendment proportionality principle)
- Massey v. United States, 443 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2006) (court may remand to correct clerical errors in the judgment)