76 F.4th 467
5th Cir.2023Background
- Willis, a convicted felon, sold and possessed multiple firearms across three distinct time periods in August–September 2019; charged and pled guilty to three counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Presentence Report calculated offense level 30, criminal-history category V, Guidelines range 151–188 months; Willis filed no PSR objections.
- On April 14, 2022 the district court orally sentenced Willis to three 120-month terms "to run consecutively" but capped the aggregate at 188 months; written judgment tracked that pronouncement.
- Willis filed a timely notice of appeal on April 20, 2022; after the BOP said the sentence could not be executed, the district court held a July re-sentencing (after obtaining party consent) and entered an amended judgment reducing aggregate to 180 months.
- Fifth Circuit held the July re‑sentencing void because the April notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction, reviewed the April sentence, rejected Willis’s multiplicity, Guidelines, and substantive-reasonableness challenges, but found the April judgment impermissibly ambiguous and vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Willis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction to re‑sentence after Willis filed notice of appeal | Notice of appeal divested district court; July re‑sentencing void | District court had authority (asked parties' permission) and could correct sentence | Court: Appeal divested district court; July re‑sentencing was void (no exceptions applied) |
| Multiplicity (multiple §922(g) counts) | Counts charge separate possession events; prosecutable separately | Three counts punished a single, continuous offense (impermissible multiplicity) | Court: Counts valid—different firearms at different times are separate offenses; multiplicity claim fails |
| Criminal‑history scoring under U.S.S.G. §4A1.2(a)(2) | PSR scoring correct; prior sentences counted separately | Two 2015 convictions should be treated as one prior sentence (would lower range) | Court: No plain error—revocation sentence imposed later in 2018 counted separately; scoring upheld |
| Substantive reasonableness of within‑Guidelines sentence | Within‑Guidelines sentence reasonable given §3553(a) factors | April sentence reflected improper consideration (punishment for courtroom behavior) | Court: Abuse‑of‑discretion review; ambiguous remarks insufficient to overcome presumption of reasonableness; claim fails |
| Whether April judgment was impermissibly ambiguous | Sentence clear enough to be executed | April judgment self‑contradictory (three 120‑month consecutive terms capped at 188 months) | Court: Sentence ambiguous/ internally contradictory; plain error affected substantial rights; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (divestiture of district court jurisdiction upon filing notice of appeal)
- Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (ambiguous sentences violate requirement that sentence reveal with fair certainty how to be executed)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error review framework for unpreserved errors)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (demonstrating prejudice from sentencing errors / reasonable probability standard)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (deferential review of sentencing determinations; district court discretion under §3553(a))
- United States v. Planck, 493 F.3d 501 (possession of different firearms at different times can be separate §922 offenses)
- United States v. Villegas, 494 F.3d 513 (simultaneous possession of multiple firearms is a single §922 offense)