United States v. Taylor
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11418
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Taylor pleaded guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 120 months, later vacated on appeal for ACCA resentencing.
- Initially, the district court concluded the ACCA did not apply due to a non-serious-drug-offense finding; we reversed and remanded for ACCA-compliant resentencing.
- On remand, a Michigan court amended the 2002 conviction’s maximum from ten years to five years, potentially removing ACCA eligibility.
- At resentencing, the district court used the May 1, 2007 Guidelines, calculated an offense level of 25 and CH VI, and again imposed 120 months.
- Taylor challenged procedural and substantive aspects, including consideration of postsentencing Guidelines amendments and Guideline cross-references.
- The panel vacates and remands for de novo resentencing in light of Pepper v. United States and how post‑sentencing amendments should influence § 3553(a) analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 3742(g)(1) after Pepper | Taylor asserts Pepper invalidates § 3742(g)(1)’s use of original-sentencing Guideline version. | Taylor contends Pepper undermines the mandatory-feel of guidelines at remand and the original-range rule. | Pepper preserves § 3742(g)(1) but requires de novo resentencing with advisory range guidance. |
| Postsentencing amendments to Guidelines under § 3553(a) | Taylor argues district court must consider postsentencing amendments to fashion an appropriate sentence. | Government urges narrow consideration or no consideration beyond original guidelines. | Court must consider postsentencing amendments relevant to § 3553(a); cannot categorically bar consideration. |
| Cross-reference to cocaine-base guideline | Taylor challenged the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross-reference to § 2D1.1 as improper. | Government argues plain-error review but record shows objection; cross-reference should be considered on remand. | Remand to consider the cross-reference in light of amendments; record shows objections were raised. |
| Application of § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement | Taylor contends no nexus between firearm and the drug offense existed to support the four-level enhancement. | Government asserts fortress-theory nexus supports enhancement; district court’s findings deserve deference. | Court affirms enhancement under fortress theory with due deference to district court findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (invalidated § 3742(g)(2) as Sixth Amendment problematic; requires consideration of postsentencing information)
- Gibbs, 626 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2010) (remand sentencing range procedure under remand proceedings)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (guidelines’ role in sentencing objectives and discretion)
- Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2001) (due deference standard for firearms enhancements tied to other felonies)
- Hardin, 248 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2001) (discussion of standard for related prior offenses and enhancements)