United States v. Thompson
851 F.3d 129
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Trezjuan Thompson pled guilty to drug conspiracy and arson and later moved to withdraw his plea, claiming he lacked opportunity to review certain discovery materials.
- The district court denied the motion to withdraw the plea and sentenced Thompson to 327 months, designating him a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1.
- One predicate for the career-offender classification was a 2006 Massachusetts assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (ABDW) conviction; the district court deemed that conviction a "crime of violence" under the guideline's residual clause, U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(a)(2).
- After Thompson filed his opening brief, the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States (striking ACCA's residual clause as unconstitutionally vague); Thompson cited Johnson in supplemental briefing and sought remand.
- The government conceded Johnson invalidated the guideline's residual clause, but argued Thompson's ABDW conviction nonetheless qualified under the guideline's force/elements clause.
- The Supreme Court later decided Beckles v. United States, holding the federal Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause; the First Circuit therefore rejected the government's earlier concession and affirmed Thompson's convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea | Thompson: plea should be withdrawn due to lack of personal review of discovery | Government: district court properly denied motion on the paper record | Denial affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion and no hearing required |
| Career-offender designation based on ABDW | Government: ABDW qualifies as "crime of violence" under the guideline residual clause | Thompson: (after Johnson) challenged residual clause's validity as a basis for career-offender status | Court relied on later Beckles to reject vagueness challenge to Guidelines and upheld designation |
| Applicability of Johnson v. United States to Sentencing Guidelines | Thompson: Johnson's reasoning should invalidate the guideline residual clause | Government (initially conceded): agreed Johnson applied to guideline; later argued force clause covers ABDW | Court held Beckles controls: Johnson does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines; government concession ignored |
| Whether ABDW qualifies under the force/elements clause | Government: ABDW qualifies under force clause independent of residual clause | Thompson: did not successfully refute force-clause application on appeal | Court did not accept government concession as binding but affirmed sentence under controlling precedent (Beckles) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gates, 709 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of plea-withdrawal denial)
- United States v. Chambers, 710 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2013) (paper record can suffice to resolve plea-withdrawal motions)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges)
- United States v. Sánchez-Berríos, 424 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2005) (party concessions on legal conclusions not binding on appellate court)
- United States v. Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (factors for whether to follow litigant concessions)
- United States v. Vega-Ortiz, 425 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2005) (follow Supreme Court precedent over party concessions)
- United States v. Matchett, 837 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 2016) (panel decision declining to apply Johnson to the career-offender guideline)