United States v. Steven McCloud
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19151
6th Cir.2013Background
- McCloud pleaded guilty in 2008 to distributing 19.4 grams of crack cocaine, was released on bond, then fled and avoided sentencing for over three years. He was arrested and sentenced on June 21, 2012.
- Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) in 2010, which lowered the statutory range for his offense from 5–40 years to 0–20 years; Dorsey made the FSA applicable to defendants sentenced after August 3, 2010.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) and the district court listed and applied the pre‑FSA statutory range (5–40 years); the Guidelines range (140–175 months) was calculated correctly and remained unchanged by the FSA.
- The district court denied an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction because it applied an obstruction enhancement for McCloud’s flight, and sentenced him to 140 months (the low end of the Guidelines range) plus four years supervised release.
- McCloud appealed, arguing among other things that the district court used the wrong statutory range at sentencing; he did not object in district court, so review is for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCloud) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of pre‑FSA statutory range at sentencing requires resentencing | Court committed procedural/plain error by using 5–40 yrs statutory range (instead of 0–20) and that error affected substantial rights and the fairness of sentencing | The erroneous statutory range was harmless because the Guidelines range (140–175 months) was correct, the sentence was within that Guidelines range, and the statutory range only sets outer bounds | Affirmed: no plain error — erroneous statutory range did not affect substantial rights when Guidelines range (which drove the sentence) was correct and the sentence fell within both ranges |
| Whether denial of acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction was erroneous | McCloud argued he should have received a §3E1.1 reduction | Government argued obstruction for fleeing justified §3C1.1 enhancement making §3E1.1 inapplicable; district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err; denial of §3E1.1 was reasonable |
| Whether misstatement at plea about supervised‑release maximum (2 yrs v. 4 yrs) invalidated plea | McCloud contended the erroneous statement affected his decision to plead | Government: the misstatement was isolated; court had properly advised McCloud of correct 4‑year maximum shortly before the error and there is no reasonable probability he would not have pled | Affirmed: no plain error; misstatement did not affect substantial rights |
| Whether a within‑Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable | McCloud argued 140 months was an abuse of discretion | Government: within‑Guidelines sentences carry a presumption of reasonableness under Gall | Affirmed: substantive reasonableness presumed and not overcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (recognizing FSA applies to defendants sentenced after enactment)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district courts must calculate Guidelines and may consider §3553(a) factors; within‑Guidelines sentences carry presumption of reasonableness)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts that increase mandatory minimums affect prescribed range; Sixth Amendment implications)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing errors)
- United States v. Rosenbaum, 585 F.3d 259 (6th Cir.) (failure to calculate correct Guidelines range is procedural error)
- United States v. Hogg, 723 F.3d 730 (6th Cir.) (remand where incorrect statutory range at plea affected plea calculus)
- United States v. Tragas, 727 F.3d 610 (6th Cir.) (remand where incorrect Guidelines calculation produced a materially higher range)