United States v. Pruitt
813 F.3d 90
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 20, 2013 a grand jury indicted Kaylon Pruitt for being a felon in possession of a firearm; he pled guilty Jan. 16, 2014.
- Facts: during an unannounced parole visit Pruitt answered the door with a shotgun; subsequent search revealed drug abuse and post-arrest misconduct while in custody.
- Presentence Report calculated a Guidelines range of 37–46 months (offense level 17, CHC IV) and described difficult upbringing and mental-health issues; defense sought 36 months, government sought the top of the range.
- At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR, announced a 46-month sentence, but made no oral, contemporaneous explanation of reasons required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).
- The written judgment used Form AO 245B (Statement of Reasons) and checked a box in Section IV indicating the sentence was within a Guideline range not greater than 24 months and that the court found "no reason to depart."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to state contemporaneous reasons for a top-of-range within-Guidelines sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) | Pruitt: the court failed to explain reasons at sentencing and must vacate and remand for an explanation or new sentencing | Government/District Court: court adopted PSR in open court and PSR facts support the sentence; no plain error on appeal | Court: District court violated § 3553(c) by not stating reasons in open court, but under plain-error review affirmed because the court explicitly adopted the PSR and PSR provided adequate factual support (no plain error) |
| Whether Form AO 245B’s check-box structure is consistent with § 3553(c) and Supreme Court precedent forbidding presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences | Pruitt (and the court): the form’s box that requires no reason for within-range sentences undermines § 3553(c) and invites forbidden presumption of reasonableness | Implicitly: form is the prescribed Judicial Conference/Sentencing Commission form and reflects practical post-Booker practice | Court: Although affirming the sentence, the court criticized AO 245B and urged the Sentencing Commission and Judicial Conference to amend the form because it conflicts with § 3553(c) and Supreme Court decisions forbidding presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural-reasonableness errors include failure to explain sentence)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate courts may, but need not, apply a presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentences; sentencing courts may not presume)
- Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350 (2009) (reiterates that Guidelines are not to be presumed reasonable by sentencing courts)
- United States v. Molina, 356 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 2004) (adopting PSR in court can cure certain § 3553(c) oral-explanation defects under plain-error review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding mandatory Guidelines incompatible with Sixth Amendment and making Guidelines advisory)