United States v. Sonnenberg
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25028
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Six defendants in a crack cocaine conspiracy pled guilty and were sentenced by Judge Moody within or below guideline ranges.
- The Seventh Circuit consolidated the six appeals and issued an unpublished order affirming all but Sonnenberg’s sentence on non-published grounds.
- Bruce Sonnenberg argued he was improperly treated as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on a 1985 Minnesota intrafamilial sexual abuse conviction.
- The district court used a controlling precedents approach available at the time, applying a non-categorical, case-specific analysis to determine if the Minnesota offense qualified as a crime of violence.
- Supreme Court Begay v. United States (2008) and this court’s McDonald (2010) require a categorical approach to classify prior offenses as crimes of violence for career-offender purposes.
- The court ultimately vacated Sonnenberg’s sentence and remanded for re-sentencing without the career-offender enhancement, while allowing consideration of §3553(a) factors on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Minnesota intrafamilial sexual abuse statute qualify as a crime of violence? | Government argued statute facially satisfies the elements-test for a crime of violence. | Sonnenberg contends statute does not qualify as a crime of violence under §4B1.2(a). | Statute does not qualify; elements-tested analysis fails. |
| Should Begay’s categorical approach govern the residual-clause analysis here? | Government seeks a Begay-based categorization supporting violence-like risk. | Sonnenberg urges flexibility based on conduct-specific considerations. | Categorical approach applies; Minnesota offense not categorically violent. |
| Is the government's argument for using the modified categorical approach viable here? | Government argues statute is divisible and the modified approach could apply. | Sonnenberg contends Minnesota statute is not divisible for this purpose. | Modified categorical approach not applicable; remains consistent with categorical approach. |
| What is the remedy given the career-offender designation should be reconsidered? | N/A | N/A | Sentence vacated and remanded for re-sentencing without the career-offender enhancement; district court may consider §3553(a) factors. |
| Should the district court’s consideration of §3553(a) factors on remand be permitted? | N/A | N/A | Yes; on remand the court may review Sonnenberg’s history and characteristics under §3553(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (categorical approach to crimes of violence in ACCA; strict requirements for residual clause)
- McDonald v. United States, 592 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2010) (applies Begay to reject certain state-sex-offense statutes as violent under Begay)
- United States v. Shannon, 110 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 1997) (en banc; allowed case-specific examination of sex offenses as crimes of violence)
- United States v. Martinez-Carillo, 250 F.3d 1101 (7th Cir. 2001) (used case-specific approach to sex offenses involving children)
- United States v. Woods, 576 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussed applicability of the modified categorical approach in divisible statutes)