United States v. Rodney Hymes
19 F.4th 928
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background
- Rodney Hymes pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine after police arrested him and seized about 43 grams of crack (among other drugs).
- Hymes had an extensive prior record including two state convictions for attempting to possess cocaine for resale; under then-controlling Sixth Circuit precedent those attempt convictions triggered the §4B1.1 career-offender enhancement.
- At initial sentencing the district court applied the career-offender guideline, calculated a Guidelines range of 188–235 months, and sentenced Hymes to 188 months.
- While Hymes’s appeal was pending the court decided United States v. Havis, which held attempt crimes do not count as controlled-substance offenses under §4B1.1; the case was remanded for resentencing in light of Havis.
- On limited remand the district court recalculated Hymes’s Guidelines (now 110–137 months), limited its review to the narrow effect of Havis, declined downward variances based on prior driving offenses, COVID-19 conditions, and post-sentencing conduct, and imposed 124 months.
- Hymes appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness, including that the court failed to consider national Sentencing Commission data showing disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Hymes' Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing a downward variance for Hymes’s driving-heavy criminal history | Driving offenses inflated criminal-history score; should reduce sentence | District court previously considered and rejected that variance; Hymes is a recidivist | No abuse of discretion; court had already addressed and rejected the variance and law-of-the-case limited relitigation |
| Whether judge relied on improper speculation (age comment) | Court speculated males "age out" of crime, constituting improper basis | Comment was a brief question, not the basis for sentence | No plain error; stray question did not determine sentence |
| Whether court erred by not addressing post-sentencing rehabilitation | Hymes’ good conduct and programming warrant leniency | Remand was limited; such conduct was not persuasive and is expected behavior | No abuse; limited remand constrained new factual inquiries and conduct was not compelling |
| Whether court improperly constrained itself on COVID-19 variance | Court treated pandemic conditions as a matter for Congress/Commission and refused variance | Court acknowledged authority but reasonably declined variance to avoid disparities | No abuse; court reasonably exercised §3553(a) discretion to deny pandemic-based variance |
| Whether court was required to consult/defer to Sentencing Commission national data under §3553(a)(6) | National data show within-Guidelines sentence is atypical and supports a lower sentence | No legal requirement to consult or defer to Commission data; Guidelines govern | Court correctly held there is no obligation to consult or defer to Commission statistics; Guidelines control |
| Whether Hymes’s within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Sentence is long compared with national averages for CHC VI crack offenders | Guidelines range properly calculated; district court weighed §3553 factors and specific facts (recidivism, obstruction) | No abuse; reasonable within-Guidelines sentence given facts and discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (held attempt crimes do not qualify as controlled-substance offenses under §4B1.1)
- United States v. Evans, 699 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2012) (prior Sixth Circuit precedent treating attempt as controlled-substance offense)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (post-sentencing rehabilitation may be considered on general remand)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (role of Guidelines and Commission’s empirical basis)
- United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2008) (a correct Guidelines calculation addresses national disparity concerns)
- United States v. Stock, 685 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2012) (Commission data may be a helpful starting point but is not mandatory)
- United States v. Barcus, 892 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2018) (changing Guidelines or prioritizing new empirical data is the Commission’s role)