United States v. Michael Hegwood
934 F.3d 414
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Michael Hegwood pleaded guilty in 2008 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (approximately 9.32 g attributable).
- At original sentencing (Jan 2010) PSR treated Hegwood as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior felony drug convictions; Guidelines range 188–235 months and sentence was 200 months.
- The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised the cocaine‑base thresholds, reducing statutory exposure for Hegwood and producing a Guidelines range of 151–188 months under the First Step Act analysis.
- Hegwood moved under the First Step Act (2018) seeking a reduced sentence and argued Tanksley meant he no longer qualified as a career offender, which would lower his Guidelines to 77–96 months.
- The district court applied the First Step Act only to back‑date the Fair Sentencing Act changes, retained the career‑offender enhancement, and resentenced Hegwood to 153 months.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the First Step Act authorizes full/plenary resentencing (including recalculation of Guidelines like career‑offender status) or is limited to reductions attributable to the Fair Sentencing Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Step Act authorizes a plenary resentencing (full Guidelines recalculation) | Hegwood: “impose” a reduced sentence requires full resentencing and fresh application of §3553(a), so career‑offender must be reconsidered | Government: First Step Act only permits reductions "as if" the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect; not a plenary resentencing | The First Step Act does not authorize plenary resentencing; courts may only adjust sentences based on the Fair Sentencing Act changes |
| Whether district court erred by keeping career‑offender enhancement after First Step Act motion | Hegwood: New law/casemaking (Tanksley) nullifies career‑offender basis; Guidelines should be recalculated | Government: Career‑offender status stands because First Step Act did not instruct courts to revisit unrelated Guidelines determinations | Court affirmed: district court properly retained career‑offender enhancement under limited First Step Act authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for appointed counsel’s Anders brief when appealing frivolous claims)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca‑Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (U.S. 2014) (statutory interpretation begins with text)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2001) (expressio unius canon: expression of one thing may exclude others)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) authorizes only limited resentencing adjustments, not plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Kaluza, 780 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2017) (interpreting career‑offender applicability under changed law)