United States v. Michael Ferguson
17-1176
| 6th Cir. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Ferguson, a convicted felon, sold multiple firearms and drugs to an undercover officer in 2015; separate state police search during a murder investigation found a mask, brass knuckles, and guns at his home.
- He pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of firearms; PSR recommended a Guidelines range of 84–105 months.
- Ferguson had a contemporaneous state felon-in-possession conviction (guns found in home) and a two-year state sentence that remained undischarged.
- At federal sentencing the district court imposed 105 months’ imprisonment (top of Guidelines) to run consecutively to the undischarged state term.
- Ferguson appealed, arguing the consecutive sentence was inadequately explained, the court relied on unreliable/inaccurate information, two criminal-history points were wrongly added, and the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed on all issues: district court considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors for sentence length and consecutive service; evidence relied upon was admissible or harmless; and two criminal-history points were properly added because probation had not been formally discharged by the relevant date.
Issues
| Issue | Ferguson's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court inadequately explained imposition of consecutive sentence | District court failed to cite USSG §5G1.3 and did not adequately explain reasons for consecutive term | District court discussed §3553(a) factors and rationale was clear and consistent with §5G1.3 commentary | Affirmed — no plain error; rationale under §3553(a) sufficed |
| Whether district court relied on unreliable or inaccurate evidence at sentencing | Court relied on uncorroborated hearsay (witness McKithen), bare arrest records, and an unproven claim that Ferguson took his daughter to illegal sales | Hearsay and uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing if minimally reliable; court did not actually rely on disputed items for the sentence or any reliance was harmless | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; consideration permissible and harmless if erroneous |
| Whether two criminal-history points under USSG §4A1.1(d) were improperly added | Ferguson argued his probation had ended before May 19, 2015 sale, so enhancement inapplicable | State records showed case closed/discharged May 20, 2015; under Michigan law probation continues until formal discharge and court may extend probation | Affirmed — two points properly added because probation had not been discharged as of May 19, 2015 |
| Whether the 105-month sentence (consecutive to 2-year state term) is substantively unreasonable | Ferguson said aggregate nearly 11-year exposure was excessive and above national average | Sentence within Guidelines; district court considered §3553(a) factors and chose a sentence "sufficient but not greater than necessary" | Affirmed — within-Guidelines sentence not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (court must make rationale generally clear when imposing consecutive sentence)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Robinson, 898 F.2d 1111 (6th Cir. 1990) (must show materially false/unreliable information actually served as basis for sentence)
- United States v. Milton, 27 F.3d 203 (6th Cir. 1994) (uncharged or acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing)
- United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir. 1992) (hearsay at sentencing must bear minimal indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Matheny, 450 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2006) (prior arrest records may be considered when specific facts are available)
- United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)