USA v. Phillip Davi
Per Curiam OPINION filed: For the reasons set forth in our recent decision in United States v. Pawlak, and upon the government s concession of prejudicial sentencing error, we VACATE Davis s sentence and REMAND for resentencing. decision not for publication. Danny J. Boggs, Julia Smith Gibbons, and Richard Allen Griffin, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0269n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PHILLIP T. DAVIS,
May 17, 2016
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: BOGGS, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Phillip Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing controlled
substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months of
imprisonment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in designating Davis
as a “career offender” pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 in light of Johnson v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating as unconstitutionally vague the “residual
clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)). For the reasons set forth in our
recent decision in United States v. Pawlak, No. 15-3566, slip op. at 2−13 (6th Cir. May 13, 2016)
(holding an identical “residual clause” in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutionally
vague), and upon the government’s concession of prejudicial sentencing error, we vacate Davis’s
sentence and remand for resentencing.
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?