UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RASHOD BETHANY
No. 19-1754
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Argued June 1, 2020 — Decided September 15, 2020
Before RIPPLE, WOOD, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:06-cr-00346-1 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.
I
BACKGROUND
A.
In 2008, Mr. Bethany was charged by a second superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, in violation of
In 2009, Mr. Bethany pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count. At the time, a conviction involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine triggered a ten-year mandatory minimum and a maximum of life imprisonment. Prior to the plea, the Government filed an information under
After Mr. Bethany‘s plea but before sentencing, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372. Among other things, the Fair Sentencing Act reduced statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses. When Mr. Bethany pleaded guilty, an offense involving 50 grams or more of cocaine triggered a twenty-year mandatory minimum. The Fair Sentencing Act raised that bar to 280 grams.
1.
In early 2011, the Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSR“), using the 2010 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which would be in effect at the time of Mr. Bethany‘s sentencing, scheduled for June
according to the PSR, Mr. Bethany‘s offense had involved over 7 kilograms of cocaine base. The Government maintained that Mr. Bethany had trafficked more than 8.4 kilograms of cocaine and thus should have a base offense level of 38. Mr. Bethany maintained that he could be found responsible for only 160 grams of cocaine, the amount involved in the controlled drug transactions for which he was apprehended. In his view, because he had been charged only with an offense involving “50 grams or more” of cocaine, the court could not sentence him based on a higher quantity. Mr. Bethany based his argument on the issue then before the Supreme Court in United States v. Alleyne, 457 F. App‘x 348 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 568 U.S. 936 (2012). After Mr. Bethany‘s sentencing, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to a jury. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 103 (2013).
2.
In March 2013, after a three-day sentencing hearing, the court found that Mr. Bethany played a leadership role in a drug dealing operation, including controlling two “stash houses.”2 Based on the evidence presented, it determined
that the offense involved at least 280 grams of cocaine. The court then calculated the guidelines range, using the 2012 Guidelines then in effect. It began with a base offense level of 32, corresponding to the 280-gram amount, and added 4 levels for Mr. Bethany‘s role as the leader of a criminal activity. It further added 2 levels each for use of violence, engaging in criminal conduct as a livelihood, obstruction of justice, and maintaining the “stash houses.” After a 2-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level was 42, which, paired with a criminal history category of
3.
Mr. Bethany appealed his conviction and sentence to this court. United States v. Bethany, 569 F. App‘x 447 (7th Cir. 2014) (”Bethany I“). He contended that the district court had committed three errors: it (1) denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) made a factual finding that resulted in an increased mandatory minimum, in violation of Alleyne; and (3) applied certain sentencing enhancements in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. We concluded that the district court‘s failure to discuss the Guidelines at sentencing was
harmless, and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We held that there was no Alleyne error: although the court determined that Mr. Bethany faced a statutory minimum of twenty years in prison, his sentence of twenty-five years was a downward departure from the guidelines range. Thus, “the statutory minimum had absolutely no effect on his ultimate sentence.” Id. at 452.
Finally, we concluded that it was not reversible error for the district court to apply enhancements for maintaining a “stash house” and for use of violence, even though those provisions did not exist when Mr. Bethany committed the crime. We observed that the application of Guidelines that came into effect after an offense was committed violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it increases the defendant‘s guidelines range. See Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 544 (2013). We concluded, however, that our precedent foreclosed Mr. Bethany from arguing “that he is entitled to pick and choose between portions of the 2005 Sentencing Guidelines and the 2012 Sentencing Guidelines.” Bethany I, 569 F. App‘x at 452. Reasoning that the district court “must apply either the entire 2005 manual or the entire 2012 manual,” we noted that Mr. Bethany had not contended that he should have been sentenced using the 2005 Guidelines.3 Id. Accordingly, we rejected Mr. Bethany‘s argument.
B.
In 2016, Mr. Bethany filed a petition under
The district court rejected the first two arguments but agreed that counsel‘s failure to argue in favor of a “one-book rule” constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Not only
was counsel‘s argument “verboten,” but the error also prejudiced Mr. Bethany.5 The district court concluded that “a 2005-only application would have been to Bethany‘s benefit” because the range was lower under that version of the Guidelines and because, “had Bethany‘s appellate counsel ... argued that Bethany would have faced a lower sentencing guideline range via a single-book application of the 2005 manual, there is a reasonable probability the Seventh Circuit would have reversed this Court‘s pre-Peugh sentence and remanded.”6 Accordingly, the district court granted Mr. Bethany‘s petition for resentencing under the 2005 Guidelines.7
Both parties filed position statements addressing the appropriate guidelines range upon resentencing. The Government‘s proposed calculations began with a base offense level of 34, based on an amount of 280 grams of cocaine. It proposed enhancements for a leadership role in a criminal activity and obstruction of justice and a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The total offense level of 38 and criminal history category of IV resulted in a range of 324 to 405 months. The Government asked the court to reimpose the sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment.
On December 21, 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Relevant here, the First Step Act reduced and restricted mandatory minimum sentences for certain defendants for whom “a sentence has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.” § 401(c). It also made retroactive certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act. Id. §§ 401, 404. Both parties filed submissions addressing the First Step Act‘s impact on the proceedings. The Government submitted that the First Step Act did not apply to Mr. Bethany because a sentence had been imposed upon him long before the Act was enacted and because he had already received the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act.
Mr. Bethany disagreed. In his view, the First Step Act applied to him because it was enacted before his resentencing and, at the time of its enactment, he had been a convicted, but unsentenced, defendant. He contended that an alleged Alleyne error by the district court at his original sentencing had prevented him from benefiting from the Fair Sentencing Act. He also submitted that in addition to a resentencing under the 2005 Guidelines, he should receive
for certain drug quantities. Mr. Bethany‘s calculations resulted in a total offense level of 31, which, combined with a criminal history category of IV, produced a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. Further, he contended that the mandatory minimum should be ten years rather than twenty because, under the First Step Act, his prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses that would trigger an enhanced sentence.
At resentencing, the district court calculated a total offense level of 37. It appears that the court tracked the Government‘s proposed calculations, except that it gave Mr. Bethany the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, rather than the two-level reduction requested by the Government.8 During the hearing, the court heard arguments from both parties regarding the applicability of the First Step Act. It then stated:
[C]urrent law provides that ... those who were sentenced prior to the Fair Sentencing Act can obtain benefits of the Fair Sentencing Act. That‘s, as I understand, what the First Step Act is ... if they were sentenced prior to [the Fair Sentencing Act], so they could not benefit by the Fair Sentencing Act because it hadn‘t been enacted, then under the ... First Step Act, the Court can go back and give him the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act. But if he had the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act even if he didn‘t receive a—it didn‘t apply to his sentence but
he had the benefit because he could have urged the Court, that‘s my understanding of the government‘s position, and that‘s kind of my understanding of the way that the [A]ct operates. He was sentenced after the Fair Sentencing Act so that he did get the benefit.9
When Mr. Bethany had the opportunity to speak, he reiterated his contention that under § 401 of the First Step Act, his prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses. The court, however, did not respond to this statement. Ultimately, the district court calculated a guidelines range of 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment. After making an adjustment based on Mr. Bethany‘s post-incarceration conduct, the court imposed a sentence of 250 months’ imprisonment.
Mr. Bethany then filed a timely appeal to this court.
II
DISCUSSION
This case presents three distinct questions: First, we examine whether § 401 of the First Step Act applies to Mr. Bethany. Second, we consider whether § 404 applies to him. Finally, we must decide whether the district court erred in declining to give Mr. Bethany the benefit of certain retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Section 401 of the First Step Act narrowed the range of offenses that qualify as predicate offenses triggering en-
hanced mandatory minimum sentences. If § 401 applies to Mr. Bethany, his prior drug convictions no longer constitute predicate offenses.
By its terms, § 401 applies “to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of this Act, if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.” § 401(c). Whether Mr. Bethany is entitled to the benefit of § 401 hinges on whether a sentence for his offense was imposed as of the date the First Step Act was enacted, while he awaited resentencing.
The answer to this question is dictated largely by our recent en banc opinion in United States v. Uriarte, No. 19-2092. Uriarte originally was sentenced for violations of
tenced, federal defendant.” Id. “Nothing in the text of the statute,” we explained,
suggests that Congress intended to create an exception to the ordinary effect of the vacatur of a sentence. Indeed, it is clear that the statute reflects a congressional intention that its policy decision apply to both pre-Act offenders who have never been sentenced and to pre-Act offenders whose sentences had been vacated before the date of the enactment, but who had not been resentenced as of that date.
Id. at 9-10.
We reach the same conclusion with respect to Mr. Bethany. Mr. Bethany was initially sentenced before the First Step Act was enacted, but he later filed a motion under
tence.” United States v. Barnes, 948 F.2d 325, 330 (7th Cir. 1991). When the First Step Act was enacted, Mr. Bethany
In short, Mr. Bethany, who did not have a valid sentence and who was awaiting sentencing at the time the First Step Act was enacted, is entitled to benefit from § 401. Accordingly, the district court erred in failing to apply § 401.
We have considered the possibility that any error in the failure to apply § 401 was harmless error because the district court made it clear during the resentencing proceeding that it did not rely on the mandatory minimum in resentencing Mr. Bethany. Our examination of the record reveals a significant possibility that Mr. Bethany would have received the same sentence regardless of whether § 401 applied. At the same time, the district court did refer to the twenty-year mandatory minimum and, in a colloquy with the defendant during resentencing, said, “It seems to me that based upon the legal issues in front of me now that you‘re stuck with the ... 20-year mandatory minimum.”12
Because some ambiguity exists in the resentencing transcript and because of the very significant difference in the mandatory minimum now applicable under the First Step Act, we believe that the proper course, while retaining appellate jurisdiction, is to inquire of the district court whether, in light of our ruling today, it is inclined to resentence
Mr. Bethany. If the court informs us that it is so inclined, we will vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. If the district court tells us that it is not inclined to resentence Mr. Bethany, we will address whether the present sentence is reasonable and then enter a final judgment. See Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484.
B.
We next address whether § 404 of the First Step Act should have applied to Mr. Bethany at resentencing. Section 404 makes retroactive certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act. As relevant here, it makes retroactive the provisions that raised the threshold amounts of controlled substances required to trigger enhanced penalties.
Before the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act, a quantity of 50 grams of crack cocaine made a defendant eligible for higher penalties. The enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act elevated the threshold to 280 grams. The Fair Sentencing Act, however, did not apply to those sentenced before its enactment; the First Step Act remedied this situation by extending the Fair Sentencing Act‘s application to those whose offenses were committed before August 3, 2010. Section 404 provides that a defendant who committed a “covered offense” is eligible for relief. A “covered offense” is defined as an offense (1) committed before the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act on August 3, 2010, and (2) involving a quantity of drugs that no longer triggers enhanced penalties. § 404(a). A defendant who committed such an offense is entitled to “a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act ... were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.” § 404(b) (citations omitted).
We therefore must inquire whether Mr. Bethany‘s conviction is a “covered offense” within the meaning of § 404. The answer to the first part of this inquiry is clear. The offense, conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute
When Mr. Bethany pleaded guilty, 50 grams of cocaine was sufficient to trigger enhanced penalties, but by the time he was sentenced, the Fair Sentencing Act had raised the threshold to 280 grams. After an extensive hearing at Mr. Bethany‘s original sentencing, the court made a finding that the offense involved 280 grams. But the district court‘s factual finding at sentencing does not affect the statute of conviction; regardless of what the court determined in later
proceedings, Mr. Bethany was convicted of an offense involving 50 grams or more of cocaine. “The relevant provision of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, section 2, did not modify the penalties on an individual basis. Instead, it broadly modified penalties for entire categories of offenses that include fixed aggravating elements, such as the weight of the drug.” Id. at 739. Accordingly, Mr. Bethany committed a “covered offense” within the meaning of § 404 of the First Step Act.
But that is not the end of the matter. Section 404(b) authorizes a court to impose a reduced sentence “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act ... were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed,” but Mr. Bethany has already been sentenced as if the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect at the time of his offense. The Fair Sentencing Act was already in effect at the time he was sentenced in 2013 and at the time he was resentenced in 2019. Thus, it was not the First Step Act that rendered Mr. Bethany eligible to receive the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act; the Fair Sentencing Act applied to him by its own terms.
What Mr. Bethany appears to be contesting here is the Alleyne violation that he believes occurred at the initial sentencing. He raised this question before in his first appeal when he contended that, absent the district court‘s finding at his initial sentencing, he would have been eligible for a lower mandatory minimum. We disagreed, explaining that because the district court had determined a mandatory minimum of twenty years and sentenced him to twenty-five years (a downward departure from the guidelines range), “the statutory minimum had absolutely no effect on his ultimate sentence.” Bethany I, 569 F. App‘x at 452. In the present appeal, Mr. Bethany cannot overcome the hurdle pre-
sented by our previous decision. The ruling in Bethany I conclusively decided the question, and “the courts ... forbid a prisoner to relitigate in a collateral proceeding an issue that was decided on his direct appeal.” White v. United States, 371 F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir. 2004). Mr. Bethany‘s argument here—that the district court that initially sentenced him violated
C.
Finally, we examine whether the district court erred in declining to apply certain retroactive amendments to the Guidelines when calculating Mr. Bethany‘s sentence.
Recall that the use of the 2005 version of the Guidelines (rather than the 2012 version) was the purpose of Mr. Bethany‘s resentencing. He does not, of course, contest the use of the 2005 Guidelines; instead, he contends that the district court should have applied three retroactive amendments promulgated in the intervening years.14 Amendments 706,
750, and 782 reduced the offense levels for certain crack cocaine offenses.15 Each applies retroactively.16 In an ordinary situation, a defendant sentenced under the 2005 Guidelines may receive a sentence reduction under certain conditions:
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
28 U.S.C. [§] 994(o) , upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth insection 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
ductions directly, rather than requiring him to go through the extra step of filing a motion under
The statute itself provides that a court may on its own motion reduce the term of imprisonment.
The text of
Conclusion
We hold that Mr. Bethany is entitled at this point to the benefit of § 401 of the First Step Act. The record raises a substantial question, however, as to whether the district court would have imposed a different sentence if it had known that § 401 is applicable. Accordingly, while retaining appellate jurisdiction, we order a limited remand to the district court to ascertain whether the court is inclined to impose
another sentence in light of our holding today. Following the procedure set forth in Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484, the district court will consider the views of counsel, at least in writing, and then reply to this court‘s inquiry.
If the district court informs us that it is not inclined to resentence Mr. Bethany, we will consider whether the adjudicated sentence is reasonable and then enter judgment accordingly. The district court will remain free to consider any motion under
IT IS SO ORDERED
SCUDDER, Circuit Judge, concurring. This appeal, much like United States v. Uriarte, No. 19-2092, presents a difficult question of statutory interpretation regarding the application of § 401 of the First Step Act to Rashod Bethany‘s resentencing. For the reasons Judge Barrett articulated in her Uriarte dissent, I believe the government had the better end of the argument. And I thought that was especially so where, as in Bethany‘s case, resentencing followed his receipt of post-conviction relief almost a decade after being originally sentenced. It is too attenuated, in my view, to say that Bethany‘s case was “pending” or that “a sentence” had not been “imposed” on the date the First Step Act became effective. See § 401(c) of the First Step Act of 2018. But Uriarte is now the law of the Circuit and requires me to conclude, as the majority opinion does, that Bethany is entitled to the benefit of § 401 of the First Step Act. I otherwise agree in full with all other aspects of today‘s opinion.
Notes
The calculations in the PSR were as follows:
| PSR Guidelines Calculations | ||
|---|---|---|
| Rationale | Level | |
| Base Offense | Over 7 kg of crack cocaine | 36 |
| Enhancements | Use of violence | +2 |
| Criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood | +2 | |
| Organizer/leader in a criminal activity | +4 | |
| Obstruction of justice | +2 | |
| Reduction | Acceptance of responsibility | -2 |
| Total | 43 | |
(continued...)
(... continued)
R.324 at 11-13. The mathematical calculations add up to 44 levels; however, because 43 is the maximum total offense level, the PSR concluded that the total offense level was 43.
(... continued)
a controlled substance.” The “stash house” enhancement became effective on November 1, 2010.
(... continued)
Guidelines. As we explained, “that is not the law of this Circuit.” United States v. Bethany, 569 F. App‘x 447, 452 (7th Cir. 2014) (”Bethany I“).
Mr. Bethany‘s sentence had incorporated three enhancements that were contained in the 2012 Guidelines but not the 2005 Guidelines: the use of violence, criminal livelihood, and “stash house” enhancements. Mr. Bethany‘s counsel challenged the legitimacy of the “stash house” enhancement at sentencing, and amended his argument on appeal to include the use of violence enhancement, but never mentioned the criminal livelihood enhancement.
Applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), the district court reviewing the
The Government asks us to construe Mr. Bethany‘s argument as an attempt to benefit from a “split-book” approach to sentencing. In its view, Mr. Bethany “was not entitled to benefit from subsequent amendments that favored him, while avoiding application of subsequent amendments that did not.” Government‘s Br. 35.
If that were the case, the answer would be clear: a sentencing court must apply a “one-book” approach, using one version of the Guidelines in its entirety. Bethany I, 569 F. App‘x at 452. But Mr. Bethany is not asking us to require a split-book approach. We understand his argument to be that the district court should have granted him the reductions for which he may have been eligible under