US v. McClellan
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STEPHEN DALE MCCLELLAN, Defendant - Appellee.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 07-1154)
January 29, 2009
April 3, 2009
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. R. Deke Falls, BARNETT & FALLS, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Stephen Dale McClellan was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute in excess of 1.5 kilograms 846 of methamphetamine, The jury in violation found, of 21 U.S.C. that
McClellan did not know and could not have reasonably foreseen the involvement of at least 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. At the original sentencing hearing, the district court
determined that it could only sentence McClellan based on the twenty grams of methamphetamine he admitted at trial, in light of the jury's court a special found verdict that finding. On this basis, was the 20,
Guidelines of thirty-three to forty-one months of imprisonment. McClellan was sentenced to thirty-six months of imprisonment. On appeal, we vacated McClellan's sentence and
remanded the case for resentencing because we found that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to take the imperative under the initial step of calculating McClellan's sentence all See
Guidelines, attributable to
United States v. McClellan, 182 F. App'x 224, 226-27 (4th Cir. 2006) ("McClellan I").
On remand, the district court again stated its belief that it could apply the advisory Guidelines using only the drug quantity district McClellan court admitted an at trial. On that basis, imposing the the
original thirty-six-month sentence. In addition, in recognition of our mandate on remand, the district court examined the record and found that McClellan knew, understood, and foresaw the
involvement of the conspiracy of at least 500 grams of the drug, that such a finding supported an offense level of 32, and, that with his criminal history category of I, McClellan's range was 121-151 months of imprisonment. sentencing
The district court,
after considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), ordered a sentence of 121 months of imprisonment as memorialized in an "Alternative Amended Judgment." On appeal, we vacated and remanded again, noting that a district court imposing a sentence after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62
(2005), must: (1) properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range; (2) determine whether a sentence within that range serves the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (3) implement mandatory statutory limitations; and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence, especially a sentence outside the range. We
instructed the district court on remand to make the appropriate findings regarding drug quantity 3 in applying the advisory
See United States v. McClellan, 257 F. App'x 654,
(4th Cir. 2007) ("McClellan II"), vacated, 129 S. Ct. 33
(2008) (No. 07-1154). The Supreme Court, however, granted a petition for
writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment in McClellan II, and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). We note
that Gall issued on the same day as our opinion in McClellan II. Thus, the district court did not have the benefit of Gall when it resentenced McClellan. In Booker the Supreme Court invalidated both 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) and (2006), 18 which § made the Sentencing (2006), Guidelines required
appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of departures from the Guidelines. 543 U.S. at 260-62. As a result of Booker, the
Guidelines are now advisory, and appellate courts are limited to reviewing sentencing decisions to determine whether such As the
sentences are "reasonable."
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 594.
Supreme Court has made clear, the "appellate `reasonableness' review" required by Booker "merely asks whether the trial court abused its discretion." 2465 (2007). Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
Further "appellate review of the reasonableness of
a sentence focuses on whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in imposing the chosen sentence." United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). As we noted in Pauley, the Gall opinion instructed that a sentencing court should first calculate the applicable Guidelines range. desire for Id. This starting point furthers Congress' administration and consistency in
sentencing. the court
After calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, must give each party an opportunity to argue for
whatever sentence they deem appropriate. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 569 (2007).
Id.; see Kimbrough v. The sentencing court
must then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine if they support the sentence requested by either party. In so
doing, the district court may not presume the Guidelines range is reasonable. 596. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473; see Gall, 128 S. Ct. at
If the sentencing court decides to sentence a defendant
outside the Guidelines sentencing range, it must consider the extent of the deviation to to ensure support that the the justification of is
Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. departure should than be a
As noted by the Gall Court, a major supported by Gall, a more 128 S. significant Ct. at 596;
Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. Accordingly, we vacate and remand McClellan's sentence for resentencing in light of the 5 Supreme Court's opinion in
See, e.g., Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-76.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?