United States v. Renard R. Butler
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 691
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In Aug. 2012 Butler was arrested after a traffic stop in Milwaukee; officers found counterfeit federal notes and a subsequent Secret Service investigation tied him to manufacturing counterfeit currency. He was released without federal charges then.
- In Jan. 2013 Butler passed counterfeit currency in three separate vehicle purchases; sellers later identified him and police recovered his fingerprints from an envelope in one transaction.
- A Feb. 2014 federal indictment charged Butler under 18 U.S.C. § 472; at arraignment he was serving a 90-day Wisconsin sentence for a 2013 forgery conviction related to separate counterfeiting activity in Green Bay.
- Butler pleaded guilty to two federal counts (possession and utterance of counterfeit securities). The PSR assessed a total offense level 13 and assigned two criminal history points for the state forgery conviction, placing him in Criminal History Category IV and yielding a Guidelines range of 24–30 months.
- Defense counsel argued in a sentencing memorandum and at hearing that the state forgery conviction should be treated as relevant conduct (not a prior sentence) and thus excluded from criminal history; counsel failed to lodge a formal Guidelines objection at sentencing. The district court imposed 24 months. Butler appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Butler) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler waived or forfeited his right to challenge the Guidelines calculation | Counsel’s failure to object was negligence (forfeiture), not intentional waiver; appellate review should be allowed | Failure to affirmatively object at sentencing amounted to waiver of the challenge | Forfeiture, not waiver; counsel’s omission was oversight, so appellate plain-error review applies |
| Whether the state forgery conviction was "conduct that was part of the instant offense" (i.e., relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3) | The forgery arose from the same continuous counterfeiting course of conduct and thus should be treated as relevant conduct rather than a prior sentence | The state offense was remote in time and place, involved different victims, means, and purposes, so it was a separate prior sentence properly counted in criminal history | Not relevant conduct; the state forgery was sufficiently distinct (different location, victims, means, temporal proximity) and properly counted as a prior sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 |
| Whether any error affected Butler’s substantial rights (prejudice) | Excluding the two criminal-history points would have placed Butler in Category III, lowering the Guidelines range to 18–24 months — so the error affected sentencing outcome | Even with Category III the low end (18–24) overlaps and the district court would have still imposed 24 months; no prejudice shown | No plain‑error prejudice: record indicates the court would have imposed 24 months regardless, so substantial‑rights prong not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
- United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture; intent inquiry)
- United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2005) (strategy can constitute waiver of sentencing arguments)
- United States v. Sykes, 7 F.3d 1331 (7th Cir. 1993) (relevant-conduct factors: similarity, regularity, temporal proximity)
- United States v. Valenti, 121 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 1997) (broad range of information may be considered at sentencing)
- Emezeo v. United States, 357 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2004) (overlapping Guidelines ranges and sentencing outcome)
- United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2011) (review of district court’s sentencing analysis sufficiency)