United States v. Patrick McGuire
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16063
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Patrick McGuire pleaded guilty to one count of interfering with commerce by threat or violence (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and faced a 20-year statutory maximum.
- At sentencing the district court classified McGuire as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior felony convictions, one of which (fleeing the police) was deemed a "crime of violence" only under the Guidelines’ residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2).
- The career-offender designation raised McGuire’s Guidelines range from 63–78 months to 151–188 months; the court imposed 188 months.
- McGuire challenged the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States; the government conceded error.
- This circuit had recently held the identical residual clause in the career-offender guideline unconstitutional in United States v. Hurlburt (en banc).
- The panel applied Hurlburt, concluded the guideline error was plain and prejudicial, vacated the sentence, and remanded for full resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | McGuire's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague | The residual clause is void under Johnson and cannot support a career-offender enhancement | Government concedes Johnson applies and the residual clause is void | Clause is unconstitutionally vague (court follows Hurlburt) |
| Standard of review and prejudice under plain-error review | McGuire: although not raised below, Johnson error is plain and affected substantial rights because it altered Guidelines range | Government: judge’s comments suggest uncertainty whether sentence would differ, urging limited (Paladino) remand | Error was plain; prejudice established because Guidelines range was materially higher and sentence far above correct range |
| Appropriate remedy (full resentencing vs limited remand) | Full resentencing to allow § 3553(a) analysis without the invalid enhancement | Government urges limited Paladino remand to ask whether judge would reimpose sentence | Vacated sentence and remanded for full resentencing (presume miscalculation influenced sentence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Supreme Court) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Hurlburt, 835 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding career-offender guideline’s residual clause void under Johnson)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Supreme Court) (error in Guidelines range often establishes reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (limited remand procedure to ask sentencing judge if she would reimpose sentence)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court) (advisory nature of the Guidelines)