United States v. Preacely
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25959
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- October 8, 2003 surveillance based on a tip that Preacely sold crack; he fled when questioned and another man was detained with crack cocaine.
- Search of Preacely's apartment yielded about seven grams of crack cocaine; a warrant for arrest issued after arrest occurred.
- Upon arrest, officers found 14.4 grams of crack cocaine and 1.32 grams of marijuana on Preacely.
- Indicted for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute 50+ grams of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii).
- Pled guilty to distribution and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base under § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) pursuant to a cooperation agreement; government agreed to file a 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance.
- Preacely's PSR highlighted extensive rehabilitation and substantial cooperation; government movant supported downward departure; district court sentenced to 94 months, well below the advisory range for a Career Offender, with time served credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court correctly understood its departure authority from the Career Offender Guideline. | Preacely argues the court treated Category VI as mandatory and did not properly consider a horizontal departure. | Preacely contends the court could depart downward from the Career Offender Guideline based on individualized factors, including rehabilitation. | Remanded for clarification and potential departure analysis; ambiguity found about departure scope. |
| Whether evidence of rehabilitation and cooperation was adequately weighed under 3553(a). | Preacely asserts rehabilitation and sustained cooperation warranted greater weight in sentencing. | The government and court treated cooperation as a basis for departure, but Preacely argues the court undervalued rehabilitation. | Procedural remand required to reconsider consideration of rehabilitation under 3553(a). |
| Whether the sentence below the Guidelines range was procedurally proper given the court's understanding of its authority. | Preacely contends the court’s halving of the low end of the range exceeded its permissible departure. | The court could depart under 5K1.1 for cooperation and consider non-Guidelines sentence within its discretion. | Remand on procedural grounds; not decided whether the sentence was substantively reasonable. |
| Whether the court's treatment of the Career Offender Guideline in light of 5K1.1 and §3553(a) was reasonable. | Preacely argues the court over-relied on the Career Offender status and ignored individualized history. | Court gave weight to rehabilitation but still applied the Career Offender framework. | Remand required to determine if Category VI over-represents history and risk in light of §3553(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (Guidelines are advisory; need for reasonable application under 3553(a))
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (requirement to explain sentences and justify departures)
- Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review; deference to district courts; departures under §3553(a))
- Sanchez v. United States, 517 F.3d 651 (2d Cir. 2008) (remand for clarification when ambiguity about departure authority exists)
- Mishoe v. United States, 241 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2001) (horizontal departure from criminal history category permitted under §4A1.3(b)(1))
- Hernandez v. United States, 604 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2010) (requirement to consider rehabilitation evidence in §3553(a) analysis)
- Jones v. United States, 531 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2008) (situations involving ambiguity about post-Booker discretion and remand procedures)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (guidelines are advisory; sentencing discretion after Booker)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (judicially imposed reasons to depart from guidelines in light of policy disagreements)