United States v. Warnell Reid
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12362
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2011 officers executing a warrant at Earnestine Graham’s home found an SKS semiautomatic rifle with a loaded 30‑round magazine, a loaded shotgun, a disassembled revolver, and items bearing Warnell Reid’s name; Graham said the guns belonged to Reid. Reid arrived during the search, had keys that opened the residence, and was arrested.
- A jury convicted Reid under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) of being a felon in possession of firearms. On initial sentencing the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act; this court vacated that sentence and remanded because § 924(e) did not apply. United States v. Reid, 769 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2014).
- On remand the district court held a resentencing, set the advisory Guidelines range at 77–96 months, applied a base offense level of 22 (large‑capacity magazine enhancement), added a two‑level § 3C1.1 obstruction/perjury enhancement, counted three criminal history points for a 1998 consecutive drug sentence, and imposed 96 months consecutive to the state term.
- Reid appealed the resentencing, arguing procedural errors (adding evidence on remand; failing to make requisite findings for enhancements; improperly counting a not‑yet‑served consecutive sentence; reliance on judge’s personal knowledge) and substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court permissibly considered remand evidence, properly applied the Guidelines and enhancements, correctly counted the prior consecutive sentence for criminal history, did not violate Rule 32, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within‑range sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand / addition of evidence | District court improperly allowed the government to add evidence on remand beyond prior record | Remand did not limit district court; it could consider any relevant evidence it could have at initial sentencing | Court: Remand unrestrictive; district court could consider additional relevant evidence (citing Kendall) |
| Base offense level — large‑capacity magazine (§ 2K2.1(a)(3)) | Court erred by relying on PSR and not making an explicit finding that the SKS could accept >15 rounds; indictment lacked notice of this guideline factor | Reid failed to object to PSR; record shows SKS was semiautomatic and accepted a 30‑round magazine; enhancement is a guideline fact not an element (Alleyne) | Court: PSR facts accepted where not objected to; ample record support; no notice defect required |
| Obstruction / perjury enhancement (§ 3C1.1) | Court relied improperly on the jury verdict and failed to make explicit findings on each perjury element | Court made an independent finding by preponderance, referencing transcript and sentencing materials; finding suffices even if not reciting each element | Court: Enhancement upheld; independent finding supported by record; no clear error |
| Criminal history points for consecutive unserved sentence (§ 4A1.1) | 1998 consecutive 10‑yr drug term doesn’t count because Reid had not actually begun serving it | The term was imposed and not suspended or otherwise negated; actual service is not required where State imposed the sentence; counting consistent with precedent | Court: Proper to assess three points; sentence counts as a prior sentence of imprisonment |
| Rule 32 / judge’s personal knowledge | District judge (former state judge) impermissibly relied on personal knowledge of state conviction facts not in PSR | District court relied on certified judicial records disclosed prior to sentencing, not personal undocumented knowledge | Court: No Rule 32 violation; reliance on certified records permissible |
| Substantive reasonableness / variance | Sentence unreasonable; court failed to account for Reid’s post‑sentencing rehabilitation | Court considered GED and arguments; afforded discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors and found within‑range sentence appropriate | Court: Within‑Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (district court must make independent finding before applying perjury/obstruction enhancement)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and consideration of § 3553(a) factors for sentencing)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory penalties are elements; guideline facts need not be alleged in indictment)
- United States v. Kendall, 475 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2007) (scope of remand permits consideration of evidence that could have been received at initial sentencing)
- United States v. Moser, 168 F.3d 1130 (8th Cir. 1999) (PSR facts may be accepted if defendant does not object)
- United States v. Thompson, 925 F.2d 234 (8th Cir. 1991) (a sentence imposed but not actually served can still count as a prior sentence of imprisonment)
- United States v. Kessler, 321 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming obstruction enhancement where independent finding is supported by record)