United States v. Saunders
18-491-cr
2d Cir.Jul 8, 2021Background:
- Defendant Malik Saunders pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and (2) using/possessing a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- District Court sentenced Saunders principally to 228 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release.
- The District Court designated Saunders a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior felony convictions: a controlled-substance conspiracy (crack) and a New York second-degree assault conviction under NYPL § 120.05(1).
- Saunders argued on appeal that NYPL § 120.05(1) is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines' Force Clause because it can be violated by omission and thus does not categorically require use/threatened use of physical force.
- Saunders also challenged the denial of a sentencing-hearing on disputed drug-quantity/role facts and argued that the court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by relying on judge-found facts to calculate an enhanced Guidelines range.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held NYPL § 120.05(1) qualifies as a crime of violence under the Force Clause, any error in denying a hearing was harmless, and reliance on judge-found facts for advisory Guidelines did not violate Apprendi/related precedent.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYPL § 120.05(1) is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines' Force Clause | Gov't: § 120.05(1) qualifies as a crime of violence, so career-offender status applies | Saunders: § 120.05(1) can be violated by omission and therefore does not categorically involve use/threatened physical force | Court: Affirmed—NYPL § 120.05(1) is a crime of violence under the Force Clause (relying on United States v. Brown) |
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on disputed sentencing facts (role and drug quantity) | Saunders: Hearing was required to resolve disputed facts affecting Guidelines | Gov't: Any error was harmless because career-offender status set the Guidelines at level 34 regardless of disputed findings | Court: No reversible error—denial harmless because career-offender designation produced the same Guidelines range |
| Whether relying on judge-found facts to calculate an enhanced Guidelines range violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (Apprendi) | Saunders: Apprendi requires jury findings for facts that increase penalties beyond prescribed ranges; judge-found facts impermissibly affected his Guidelines range | Gov't: Apprendi inapplicable because disputed facts did not increase statutory maximums/minimums and the Guidelines are advisory | Court: No constitutional violation—facts used only to calculate advisory Guidelines range, not to exceed statutory limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (Apprendi rule applies to facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory)
- United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) (district courts may find sentencing facts by a preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2001) (Apprendi does not apply when the sentence imposed is not greater than the prescribed statutory maximum)