United States v. Ric Thomason, Jr.
940 F.3d 1166
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Thomason pleaded guilty to eight counts: four 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon-in-possession) counts and four § 922(j)/§ 924(a)(2) (possession/sale of stolen firearms) counts based on 21 stolen guns recovered in 2003.
- Presentence report applied multiple U.S.S.G. adjustments producing an offense level of 33 and Criminal History Category VI; the report concluded the ACCA § 924(e) enhancement raised statutory exposure but not the Guidelines range.
- The district court adopted the report, imposed an upward-departure sentence of 327 months on the felon-in-possession counts (and concurrent 120-month terms on the stolen-firearms counts); Thomason did not appeal.
- After Johnson v. United States, Thomason filed a § 2255 motion; the government conceded the ACCA enhancement was unlawful and asked the court to preserve the 327-month sentence by reordering concurrency/consecutive terms.
- The district court granted relief, reexamined submissions (but held no in-person resentencing hearing), and reduced the total sentence to 293 months (top of the originally-calculated guideline range), running four 120-month sentences consecutively as needed.
- The narrow appellate question: did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying the sentence without holding a resentencing hearing with Thomason present?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion by refusing an in-person resentencing hearing after granting § 2255 relief for an ACCA error | Thomason: Johnson error effectively vacated the operative sentence; his presence was required for a full resentencing so he could present mitigation (post‑sentencing rehab) | Government: error did not alter the guideline range; court could correct the sentence administratively and preserve original sentencing considerations without a hearing | No abuse of discretion; no in-person resentencing required |
| Whether the Johnson error undermined the sentence as a whole (triggering the right to be present) | Thomason: because he already served the 120‑month stolen‑firearms term, only the unlawfully‑enhanced portion remained—practical effect was total vacatur | Government: the original guideline range was unchanged by the conceded ACCA error at sentencing; the error did not force wholesale reconsideration of the sentence | Court: error did not undermine the sentence as a whole; guideline range used originally remained valid |
| Whether considering written submissions about post‑sentencing rehabilitation without a hearing violated due process | Thomason: needed live opportunity to present and contest evidence | Government: district court gave notice and opportunity to submit materials; written process sufficed | Court: written submissions were adequate; no hearing required to consider post‑sentencing conduct |
| Whether converting concurrent terms to consecutive terms or otherwise modifying sentence constituted an impermissible upward variance requiring a hearing | Thomason: modification effectively increased severity and exercised new discretion needing defendant present | Government: court reimposed a sentence at top of original guideline range (not an upward variance) and used consecutive running to reach that total | Court: modification was not an upward variance; using consecutive 120‑month terms to reach the 293‑month guideline top was permissible without a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Supreme Court 2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause for vagueness)
- United States v. Brown, 879 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing between full resentencing and limited sentence correction under § 2255)
- United States v. Jackson, 923 F.2d 1494 (11th Cir. 1991) (defendant has right to be present at resentencing after vacatur)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (presence required at critical stages where it contributes to fairness)
- Troiano v. United States, 918 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2019) (district court not required to hold full resentencing when correction doesn't change guideline range or total sentence)
- United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court may consider post‑sentencing conduct on written submission without a hearing)
- Parrish v. United States, 427 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2005) (limits on defendant's right to be present for sentence modifications)