United States v. William Dahl, 713 F. App'x 62

Background

William Dahl was convicted for attempting to engage minors in sexual activity after undercover investigations; he pled guilty without a binding plea agreement.
The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 (recidivist sexual-offender enhancement) based on prior convictions, producing an enhanced Guidelines range of 235–293 months; without the enhancement the range was 121–151 months.
At the original sentencing the District Court imposed 293 months (top of enhanced range); this Court vacated that sentence on appeal because a 1991 Delaware conviction could not serve as a predicate under the categorical approach and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the District Court recalculated the correct (unenhanced) Guidelines range (121–151 months) but granted the government’s request for an upward variance based on Dahl’s criminal history and danger to the public and again imposed 293 months.
Dahl challenged the resentencing, raising a due process claim that the Court effectively reimposed the vacated enhanced-range sentence and asserting procedural sentencing errors (failure to meaningfully consider the unenhanced range and inadequate explanation for the variance).
The Third Circuit affirmed: it held that considering prior-offense facts at step 3 (§ 3553(a) factors) is permissible even if those convictions could not be used at step 1 under the categorical approach, and found no plain procedural error in the District Court’s explanation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reimposing the same 293-month sentence on remand violated due process by perpetuating the now-invalid enhanced Guidelines range	Dahl: Reimposition effectively preserved the erroneous 235–293 range and denied him the benefit of the remand	Gov't/District Court: Court properly recalculated the range and independently considered § 3553(a) factors (including prior-offense facts) to justify variance	Court: No due process violation; step‑1 categorical limits do not bar consideration of prior-offense facts at step‑3; sentence upheld
Whether referencing or relying on an inapplicable Guidelines range at step 3 is per se procedural error	Dahl: Use of the old enhanced range contaminated step‑3 sentencing and required remand	Gov't: District Court may refer to alternative ranges as guidance; Molina‑Martinez does not make that reference per se error	Court: Not a per se error; Molina‑Martinez does not require remand for mere reference to an alternative (inapplicable) range
Whether the District Court meaningfully considered the correct (unenhanced) Guidelines range	Dahl: Court failed to show cognizance of the 121–151 range and did not adequately explain why it was rejecting it	District Court: Calculated the unenhanced range and then explained sentencing decision based on § 3553(a) factors	Court: No plain error; record shows the Court considered the unenhanced range and explained its reasons for an upward variance
Whether the District Court failed to respond to defense mitigation arguments and give an adequate explanation for the large variance	Dahl: Court did not address mitigation (age, infirmity) sufficiently; inadequate explanation warrants plain‑error relief	District Court: Discussed and rejected mitigating arguments as insufficient given recidivism and public protection needs	Court: No plain error; explanation sufficient under plain‑error standard

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Dahl, 833 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2016) (prior opinion vacating sentence for improper § 4B1.5 predicate under categorical approach)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (remand presumption when an incorrect Guidelines range affects sentencing)
United States v. Rosales‑Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that a court on remand may reimpose a previously vacated sentence based on an independent § 3553(a) analysis)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for reviewing reasonableness of a sentence and requirement to consider § 3553(a) factors)