United States v. Lynn
592 F.3d 572, 2010 WL 322176, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1927 (2010)
Rule of Law:
When a party challenges a procedural sentencing error, such as a district court's failure to consider statutory factors or adequately explain a sentence, for the first time on appeal, the appellate court reviews for plain error. A party can preserve such an objection for appellate review by arguing to the district court for a different sentence based on relevant statutory factors, thereby alerting the court of its responsibility to provide an individualized explanation.
Facts:
- Police discovered Avery Peake with a gun and $500 on his person, in a car containing crack cocaine.
- Jeremy Vashon Tucker accidentally shot himself in the leg three years prior to his conviction for possessing a firearm.
- A trooper stopped Mark Lynn and Tavarras Rhodes's rental sedan on I-95 for committing several evasive traffic violations.
- As the trooper approached Lynn and Rhodes's car, he smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment, noticed their nervousness, and received inconsistent stories about their trip.
- A warrantless search of Lynn and Rhodes's car revealed empty glassine baggies in the back seat, a half-smoked marijuana cigarette on the driver's side floor, an overwhelming chemical odor from the trunk, and a plastic bag containing more than 100 grams of heroin in the trunk.
- Lynn's career offender status, which significantly increased his Guidelines range, rested on convictions that occurred 10- to 18-years prior and resulted in less than three combined years of incarceration.
Procedural Posture:
- Avery Peake pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (trial court) to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- The U.S. District Court (trial court) imposed a 57-month prison sentence on Peake, who then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- Jeremy Vashon Tucker pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (trial court) to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.
- The U.S. District Court (trial court) imposed a 101-month prison sentence on Tucker, who then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- A grand jury indicted Mark Lynn and Tavarras Rhodes in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (trial court) for possessing with intent to distribute and conspiring to distribute over 100 grams of heroin.
- Lynn and Rhodes filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the U.S. District Court (trial court) denied.
- A jury in the U.S. District Court (trial court) convicted Lynn and Rhodes of both crimes.
- The U.S. District Court (trial court) sentenced Lynn to 33 years in prison.
- Lynn and Rhodes appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does plain-error review apply to claims of procedural sentencing error, like a failure to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or provide an adequate explanation for a sentence, when such claims are raised for the first time on appeal, and how may such an objection be properly preserved in the district court?
Opinions:
Majority - Motz
Yes, plain-error review applies to unpreserved claims of procedural sentencing error, and an objection is properly preserved if a party informs the court of the action it wishes the court to take or its objection and grounds when the ruling is made or sought. The court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), coupled with Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Olano, Puckett v. United States, and United States v. Booker, dictates that plain-error review applies to unpreserved claims of procedural sentencing error. To establish plain error, an appellant must show that an error was made, that it was plain or obvious, and that it affected substantial rights, and even then, correction is discretionary only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court also clarified that proper preservation of a procedural sentencing error objection is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(b), meaning a party preserves a claim by arguing to the court, prior to sentencing, for a different sentence based on relevant § 3553(a) factors, thereby sufficiently alerting the court to its obligation to provide an individualized explanation. This approach avoids requiring formulaic post-sentence objections. Applying these principles, the court found that Peake's counsel merely 'pointed out' facts without arguing for a different sentence, thus failing to preserve his objection, leading to an affirmance under plain-error review. Conversely, Tucker and Lynn both made specific arguments based on § 3553 factors for sentences different from those ultimately imposed, thereby preserving their objections. For Tucker and Lynn, the district courts' failures to address their nonfrivolous arguments or adequately explain substantial deviations from the Guidelines constituted an abuse of discretion, which was not harmless error, leading to the vacation and remand of their sentences.
Analysis:
This case clarifies a critical aspect of federal sentencing review by establishing the plain-error standard for unpreserved procedural sentencing errors and defining the mechanism for preserving such objections. It reinforces the Supreme Court's mandate that district courts must provide individualized explanations for sentences, particularly for out-of-Guidelines sentences, and actively engage with defendants' nonfrivolous arguments. The ruling provides practical guidance for attorneys, ensuring that arguments made before the court's ruling are sufficient for preservation, thus streamlining the sentencing process and fostering more robust appellate review.
