United States v. Wilbert Knight, Jr.
710 F. App'x 733
9th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Wilbert Earl Knight convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced in district court; he appealed.
- Knight argued his prior Louisiana armed robbery conviction should not count as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and 4B1.2, which affected his guideline range.
- He also claimed the district court relied on impermissible rehabilitative considerations at sentencing and erred procedurally by not announcing the guideline range before discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- Knight sought a three-point U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the Government and district court granted only two points, citing pretrial motions and delays.
- The Ninth Circuit applied the categorical approach (Taylor) and examined Louisiana caselaw interpreting the robbery statute, reviewing unpreserved sentencing objections for plain error, and addressing whether the refusal to award the third acceptance point rested on permissible grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Knight) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana armed robbery is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines | The statute's "force or intimidation" can encompass non-physical force, so it is not categorically a crime of violence | Louisiana caselaw shows the statute requires overcoming a victim's resistance—physical force—so it is a crime of violence | Held: Louisiana armed robbery is a categorical crime of violence under Taylor/Jonson standard |
| Whether sentencing judge relied on impermissible rehabilitative reasons | Sentence length reflected rehabilitative considerations, which is improper | Remarks about education/training were contextual; the court emphasized offense seriousness and the guideline range | Held: No error (reviewed for plain error); no indication sentence increased for rehabilitation |
| Whether district court erred procedurally by not announcing guidelines before § 3553(a) discussion | Order of proceedings deprived Knight of meaningful opportunity to argue against sentence | Knight had adequate opportunity to be heard; court explained consideration of § 3553(a) factors | Held: Not plain error; procedure did not affect substantial rights |
| Whether Knight should receive a 3-point acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 | Knight argued delays and motions should not preclude the third point; he relied on his plea and cooperation | Government refused the third point citing motion to suppress and pretrial delays; district court accepted that rationale without further findings | Held: Vacated and remanded on this issue — refusal may have relied on impermissible reasons; court must assess only the § 3E1.1(b) grounds (whether delays materially forced trial preparation or resource allocation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach for defining prior offenses as violent felonies under sentencing law)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (defining "physical force" required for violent felony determination)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (plain-error review standard)
- United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186 (Ninth Circuit discussion of categorical approach application)
- United States v. Vance, 62 F.3d 1152 (pretrial motions like suppression cannot be held against defendant for acceptance adjustment)
- United States v. Kimple, 27 F.3d 1409 (same principle limiting denial of acceptance credit for exercising constitutional rights)
- United States v. Sahagun-Gallegos, 782 F.3d 1094 (limits on government's discretion to refuse § 3E1.1(b) motion)
- United States v. Brown, 437 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. discussion of Louisiana robbery statute emphasizing risk to victim)