United States v. Michael Calabretta
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13568
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Calabretta pleaded guilty (2013) to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and money laundering; mandatory five-year minimum applied.
- Presentence Report treated two prior New Jersey convictions (Death by Auto, 1990; Eluding in the Second Degree, 1994) as "crimes of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, designating him a career offender and raising his Guidelines range from 108–135 to 188–235 months.
- District Court adopted the PSR, denied a requested two-level reduction tied to an anticipated Guidelines amendment (in part because of career-offender status), but imposed a 120-month sentence (below the career-offender range) after weighing § 3553(a) factors.
- Calabretta did not object at sentencing to the career-offender designation; on appeal he argued the § 4B1.2 residual clause is void for vagueness in light of Johnson.
- The Third Circuit held that the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague (applying reasoning from Johnson), that the District Court plainly erred in treating the eluding conviction as a crime of violence, and that the error affected Calabretta’s substantial rights; the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Calabretta's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4B1.2(a)(2) residual clause is void for vagueness | The identically worded residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson | The advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness attack or, even if void, error did not prejudice Calabretta | Clause is unconstitutionally vague; § 4B1.2(a)(2) invalid under Johnson reasoning |
| Whether District Court plainly erred in treating eluding conviction as a crime of violence | Treating eluding as a predicate was error that is plain on appeal | No plain error because sentence was the "minimum sufficient" and the court likely would have imposed same sentence | Plain error established: District Court erred and error was plain |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights (prejudice) | Erroneous career-offender designation materially inflated Guidelines range and influenced sentencing (including denial of amendment-based reduction) | Downward variance and district court statements show sentence would have been same absent error | Error affected substantial rights; miscalculation created reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether remand for resentencing is appropriate (Plano discretion) | Remand required because error seriously affects fairness and integrity given the large Guidelines miscalculation and sentencing record | No remand: sentencing record shows court imposed same 120-month minimum regardless of the Guidelines range | Court exercises discretion to remand for resentencing; relief awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (residual clause in ACCA held void for vagueness)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. 2009) (ACCA interpretation relevant to career-offender analysis)
- United States v. Hopkins, 577 F.3d 507 (3d Cir. 2009) (applying ACCA cases to career-offender Guideline)
- United States v. Marrero, 743 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2014) (applying ACCA precedent to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (held § 4B1.2 residual clause not void in advisory Guidelines context)
- United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015) (held § 4B1.2 residual clause void; remanded for resentencing)
- United States v. Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016) (held § 4B1.2 residual clause void)