United States v. Terry Shifflett
16-4147
| 4th Cir. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- In 2000, Terry Lee Shifflett pleaded guilty to two federal felonies: 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (using/carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting distribution of controlled substances). Sentences were 60 months (§ 924(c)) and 168 months (drug), served consecutively; three-year supervised release terms were imposed concurrently for each count.
- In 2005, the 168-month distribution sentence was reduced to 140 months under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); other terms remained unchanged.
- After release, Shifflett began supervised release and admitted a violation in 2016 for dealing heroin. At revocation, the district court found a statutory maximum of five years for revocation and calculated a Guidelines range of 46–57 months; neither party objected.
- The parties jointly recommended, and the district court imposed, a 41-month custodial sentence (below the Guidelines range) followed by 19 months’ supervised release.
- On appeal, Shifflett, for the first time, argued plain error: he claimed the underlying drug conviction was a Class C felony, so the maximum revocation term should have been two years, making the 41-month sentence exceed the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence exceeded the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) | Shifflett: underlying drug conviction is Class C → revocation max = 2 years; 41-month sentence plain error | Government: supervised release was for both convictions; § 924(c) is a Class A felony (max = life) → revocation max = 5 years | Court: Held no plain error; § 924(c) conviction is Class A, so 5-year cap applies and 41-month sentence is within statutory maximum |
| Whether plain error review overturns the sentence | Shifflett: plain error because statutory maximum misapplied | Government: no plain error; correct statutory classification | Court: Plain error standard not met; sentence not procedurally or substantively unreasonable |
| Whether the Guidelines argument based on Class C premise succeeds | Shifflett: Guidelines range premised on Class C status | Government: premise incorrect due to § 924(c) Class A status | Court: Rejected Guidelines argument as premised on mistaken classification |
| Whether pro se § 2244/§ 2255-type filing on direct appeal is proper | Shifflett (pro se): requested relief under § 2244/§ 2255 | Government: such collateral requests improper on direct appeal and contrary to local Rule 22(d) | Court: Struck pro se submission as non-justiciable and denied motion without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review standard for issues raised first on appeal)
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing revocation sentences and evaluating reasonableness)
- United States v. Turner, 389 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2004) (absence of statutory maximum treated as life imprisonment)
- United States v. Cristobal, 293 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding § 924(c)(1) offenses carry life as the maximum possible sentence)
- United States v. Shabazz, 564 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2009) (collecting cases concluding § 924(c) offenses have life as maximum)
- United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430 (4th Cir. 1993) (plain-error reversal elements)
Affirmed.