United States v. Willis
649 F.3d 1248
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Willis pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and powder, with guidelines inputs including an estimated 32 kg cocaine hydrochloride and a firearm enhancement.
- The PSR classified Willis as a career offender, producing a total offense level of 33 and a guideline range of 235–240 months.
- The Government moved for a downward departure under § 5K1.1; Willis received 192 months after a separate 3582(c)(2) scenario and assistance in other prosecutions.
- Willis challenged the firearm enhancement on appeal; this court affirmed, finding substantial evidence of drug trafficking in Willis's home.
- In December 2008 Willis filed § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on six grounds; the district court granted resentencing only to eliminate the career offender enhancement.
- At resentencing in October 2009, Willis objected to firearm enhancement and drug quantity in the new PSR, but the court limited relitigation to the career offender issue, denying other challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the resentencing scope was properly limited | Willis argues the hearing should relitigate firearm and quantity evidence | Willis's position is that resentencing must revisit all sentence inputs | Limit to career-offender issue was proper; no error in restricting relitigation |
| Whether Willis waived challenges to § 2255 claims | Willis contends his ineffective-assistance claims were properly preserved | Government asserts some claims were abandoned or waived | Willis waived many challenges; only firearm-enhancement claim certificate of appealability remained |
| Whether § 3552(d) ten-day PSR notice was violated and harmless | Willis argues failure to provide ten days prior to sentencing violated rights | Government asserts any error was harmless under independent analysis | If error existed, it was harmless; no reversible impact on outcome |
| Whether district court properly denied § 5K1.1 downward departure | Willis argues court should have granted substantial-assistance departure | Court considered power to depart but chose not to | Court's denial of § 5K1.1 is unreviewable; not a basis to reverse |
| Whether Willis's sentence is substantively reasonable | Willis challenges reasonableness due to one-off departure denial | Sentence at low end of range reflects crimes and history | Sentence deemed reasonable given circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review for sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentences)
- Davenport, 151 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 1998) (ten-day PSR notice; harmless-error framework)
- United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166 (11th Cir. 1988) (limit resentencing scope to allocution and not relitigate issues)