United States v. Steven Banks
699 F. App'x 437
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Steven Banks was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and 4 years’ supervised release (SR).
- The district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 career-offender enhancement based on Banks’s prior Louisiana drug convictions.
- Banks did not object in district court to the career-offender finding or to the special condition at sentencing, so appellate review is for plain error.
- The SR included a special condition stating that Banks must participate in a substance-abuse program “should the probation office deem it necessary” (delegating the necessity determination to probation).
- Banks appealed, arguing (1) improper delegation of legal determination regarding career-offender status to the probation officer and (2) impermissible delegation of judicial responsibility to decide whether SR treatment was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court impermissibly delegated the legal determination of career-offender status to probation by relying on the PSR | Banks: court relied on PSR and failed to make independent legal finding on whether prior convictions qualify under § 4B1.1 | Government: Banks waived challenge by not objecting; he also failed to argue on appeal that the prior statutes aren’t controlled-substance offenses | No plain-error relief; Banks waived substantive challenge and failed to show affected substantial rights, so enhancement stands |
| Whether special SR condition improperly delegated to probation the decision whether treatment is necessary | Banks: condition delegates to probation the judicial function of deciding necessity of treatment | Government: any error likely harmless because court would probably have imposed treatment if acting directly | Court found clear error (delegation) but declined to correct under plain-error fourth prong (no serious effect on fairness, integrity, or public reputation); affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Castaneda-Lozoya, 812 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object at trial)
- United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2008) (waiver of challenges not raised below)
- United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2007) (district court may not rely solely on PSR to classify prior offenses for career-offender guideline)
- United States v. Ochoa-Cruz, 442 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2006) (appellate court need not decide controlled-substance status when defendant fails to argue it)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard articulation)
- United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2016) (imposition of SR conditions is a core judicial function that may not be delegated)
- United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2009) (discussion of the fourth prong of plain-error review and limits on correcting unpreserved errors)