United States v. Whitehead
986 F.3d 547
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- George Whitehead Jr. was convicted (by jury) in 2007 of possession with intent to distribute >50 grams of crack cocaine and received a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on at least two prior felony drug convictions.
- The offense conduct occurred in September 2005; the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 later raised the crack thresholds that had triggered harsher penalties.
- Whitehead moved for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act (FSA); the Government conceded eligibility, but the district court initially ruled him ineligible by relying on the PSR’s drug-quantity calculation.
- This Court remanded twice: first to have the district court reconsider and later to explain its reasons if it denied relief; on limited remand the district court found Whitehead not eligible and alternatively denied a reduction on the merits.
- The district court’s merits reasoning emphasized the seriousness of the offense (drug dealing with firearms), an extensive criminal history (Category V including assaults and an attempted murder arrest), lack of acceptance of responsibility, and perceived false testimony; it did not grant a reduction despite Whitehead’s disciplinary record and prison programming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Whitehead is eligible for a sentence reduction under FSA §404 (a “covered offense”) | Government conceded Whitehead is eligible; the statute of conviction was amended by the Fair Sentencing Act. | Whitehead argued he is eligible; district court had concluded PSR quantity put him outside FSA scope. | Held: Eligible. Covered-ness depends on the statute of conviction, not PSR quantity. |
| Whether the district court disregarded this Court’s remand mandate | Government argued district court complied by reconsidering and explaining its decision. | Whitehead argued the court disregarded the mandate and should have granted relief. | Held: No mandate violation; remand required consideration and explanation, not an automatic grant. |
| Whether the district court’s explanation and §3553(a) consideration were adequate | Government and district court maintained the succinct explanation and reliance on criminal history and offense seriousness sufficed. | Whitehead argued the explanation was inadequate and failed to address §3553(a) factors. | Held: Explanation adequate; court acted within broad discretion and the record reflects consideration of §3553(a) factors. |
| Whether the district court erred by not giving weight to Whitehead’s post-sentencing rehabilitation | Government noted district courts are not required to grant relief for post-conviction progress. | Whitehead urged that his prison conduct, programs, and remorse warranted reduction. | Held: No error; district court not required to give weight to post-sentencing rehabilitation and did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315 (5th Cir.) (FSA covered-offense analysis depends on statute of conviction)
- United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir.) (FSA resentencing frame: alter only the legal landscape changed by Fair Sentencing Act)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- United States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681 (5th Cir.) (limitations on considering a bare arrest record at sentencing)
- United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415 (5th Cir.) (when an arrest record is not "bare" and may be considered)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir.) (comparative guidance on explanation and §3553(a) consideration in sentence-modification context)