958 F.3d 151
2d Cir.2020Background
- Kolongi Richardson pleaded guilty (Sept. 21, 2018) to distribution and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
- The district court designated Richardson a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, finding the instant offense and two prior felony drug convictions qualified as "controlled substance offenses."
- Prior convictions: 2005 federal conspiracy to distribute/possession with intent (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and 2012 attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance (N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16(1)).
- The court sentenced Richardson principally to 210 months' imprisonment and imposed six years' supervised release with mandatory mental-health and substance-abuse participation.
- Richardson appealed, arguing (1) procedural error in applying the career-offender enhancement because Application Note 1 improperly includes inchoate offenses (attempt/conspiracy) and § 846 conspiracy lacks an overt-act requirement, and (2) substantive unreasonableness because the court overemphasized his criminal history and failed to adequately account for his treatment needs.
Issues
| Issue | United States' Argument | Richardson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior convictions qualify as "controlled substance offenses" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) for the career-offender enhancement | Application Note 1 to § 4B1.2 validly includes attempts and conspiracies; prior convictions therefore qualify | Application Note 1 unlawfully expands the guideline text to include inchoate offenses; § 846 conspiracy (no overt-act requirement) cannot be a predicate | Affirmed. Application Note 1 is consistent with § 4B1.2; inchoate offenses (attempt/conspiracy) and § 846 narcotics conspiracy qualify as controlled substance offenses (Tabb/Jackson controlling) |
| Whether the 210-month within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | The within-Guidelines sentence was justified after consideration of § 3553(a) factors, criminal history, and the need for specific conditions (treatment) | The court gave excessive weight to criminal history and did not adequately account for Richardson's mental-health and substance-abuse needs | Affirmed. Sentence not "manifestly unjust" or conscience-shocking; district court adequately considered § 3553(a) and the sentence lies within the permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (commentary to the Guidelines is authoritative unless inconsistent with the guideline)
- United States v. Jackson, 60 F.3d 128 (2d Cir.) (upheld Sentencing Commission's authority to include inchoate drug offenses)
- United States v. Tabb, 949 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (reaffirmed validity of Application Note 1 and foreclosed challenges)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. en banc) (standards for substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.) (sentence is substantively unreasonable only if it is manifestly unjust or shocks the conscience)
- United States v. Lange, 862 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir.) (discussion that a statute that "prohibits" conduct can encompass inchoate offenses)