United States v. Young, 863 F.3d 685

Gregory F. Young, a felon with two 2007 burglary-of-dwelling convictions, pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
After release on probation in 2015, Young tested positive for drugs and attempted to evade testing using a "Whizzinator." He was later stopped in Illinois; searches recovered a loaded .40 handgun, an SKS-type rifle with multiple magazines and 221 rounds, heroin, and marijuana. Young said he possessed weapons because he believed a gang wanted to kill him.
Guidelines calculation: base offense level 20 (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)), +4 for possession in connection with another felony (drug possession), -3 for acceptance, for a total offense level 21. Criminal history category V → guideline range 70–87 months.
Probation officer suggested an upward variance under Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 based on Young’s prior burglaries; if burglaries still qualified as crimes of violence, range would have been 84–105 months.
District court sentenced Young to 84 months. The court explained it considered the properly calculated guideline range and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors (weapons, ammunition, recidivism risk, recent drug use), and commented that the burglary amendment reduced but did not eliminate the court’s concern.
Young appealed, arguing procedural error because the district court relied on a clearly erroneous factual finding that his prior burglaries were violent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Young)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred by relying on a clearly erroneous fact (that prior burglaries were violent) to enhance sentence	Young: Court relied on the PSR/remarks as finding burglaries involved violence and used that to increase sentence	Govt: Review should be for plain error because Young did not object to PSR facts; district court relied on properly calculated range and §3553(a) factors	Court: No procedural error — district court did not find burglaries were violent or rely on such a finding; it considered properly calculated guidelines and §3553(a) factors and lawfully imposed 84 months

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing reasonableness and procedural requirements)
United States v. McLaughlin, 760 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness review)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (post-Booker sentencing framework; procedural review is legal question)
United States v. Mendoza, 510 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of whether proper procedures were followed at sentencing)
United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 633 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussion of windshield obstruction under Illinois law)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (district courts may disagree with Sentencing Commission and vary based on such disagreement)