U.S. v. Novey, 89-6327
| Citation | 922 F.2d 624 |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-6327,89-6327 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Antoin NOVEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Thomas D. McCormick, Oklahoma City, Okl., Michael G. Katz, Federal Public Defender, and Jill M. Wichlens, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colo., on the briefs, for defendant-appellant.
Timothy D. Leonard, U.S. Atty. and Frank Michael Ringer, Asst. U.S. Atty., W.D. Okl., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the briefs for plaintiff-appellee.
Before McKAY, SEYMOUR and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises from a sentence entered by the district court following the defendant's guilty plea on two counts of a seven-count indictment. The defendant, Charles A. Novey, claims the district court erred by (1) classifying him as a career offender under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; (2) increasing his punishment as a career offender when the government failed to allege both prior offenses in its notice filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851(a)(1) (1988); and (3) requiring restitution for conduct that did not form the basis of the offense of conviction.
On May 16, 1989, the government filed a seven-count indictment against the defendant. Mr. Novey pleaded guilty to count 1, which alleged possession with intent to distribute 3837.5 grams of marijuana and 68 marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1988). He also pleaded guilty to count 4, which charged him with making a false statement to the Postal Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (1988). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment.
On June 12, 1989, ten days prior to the guilty pleas, the government filed an information alleging that the defendant had been previously convicted of a controlled substance offense. Under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(C) (1988), the prior conviction raised his maximum penalty from twenty to thirty years.
The presentence investigation report, prepared after the defendant pleaded guilty, stated that the defendant had two prior convictions involving controlled substances. The first occurred on October 17, 1972, from which the defendant was released on November 24, 1974. The second conviction, which was included in the information, was entered on March 31, 1983.
Based on his two prior controlled substance offenses, the district court determined that the defendant was a career offender under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. His offense level and criminal history category were raised from a level 16 and category V imprisonment range of 41 to 51 months to a level 34 and category VI range of 262 to 327 months. The court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 262 months on count 1 and 40 months on count 4. The court also ordered restitution to nine victims which totaled $21,752.25.
The defendant contends that the trial court's determination that he was a career offender was error. He argues that he does not have "two prior felony convictions" based on the language in section 4B1.2(3) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The defendant's argument rests on the proper calculation of criminal history under the Guidelines. Section 4A1.2(e) of the Guidelines sets forth the applicable time period for computing criminal history. 1 It requires that a prior sentence of imprisonment of more than thirteen months be counted for purposes of computing criminal history if the sentence resulted in the defendant's incarceration within fifteen years of the commencement of the instant offense.
Section 4B1.1 of the Guidelines includes in its definition of a career offender a defendant who has at least "two prior felony convictions" of a controlled substance offense. 2 Section 4B1.2(3) defines "two prior felony convictions." It states that "[t]he date that a defendant sustained a conviction shall be the date the judgment of conviction was entered." 3
The defendant contends that there is an ambiguity between sections 4A1.2(e) and 4B1.2(3) and that the rule of lenity applies to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 2252, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980); United States v. Conners, 606 F.2d 269, 272 (10th Cir.1979). The defendant argues that his 1972 conviction should not be counted in the computation of his criminal history because it was not entered within fifteen years of the commencement of the instant offense.
We agree with the district court and conclude that the Guidelines pertaining to the career offender provision are not ambiguous. Application Note 4 of section 4B1.2 clearly states that the provisions of section 4A1.2(e) are applicable to the counting of convictions under section 4B1.1. Therefore, a felony conviction is counted as one of two prior convictions for purposes of computing criminal history if the defendant was incarcerated during part of the fifteen-year period. See United States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir.1990). Because section 4A1.2(e) does not rely on the date of conviction when calculating criminal history, section 4B1.2(3) adds no guidance to the calculation of the applicable time period.
The defendant's first prior conviction falls within the fifteen-year period set forth in section 4A1.2(e) because he was released in November 1974 from his October 1972 controlled substance conviction. The defendant's 1983 conviction is also counted. The district court, therefore, correctly concluded that the defendant was a career offender under section 4B1.1 of the Guidelines.
The defendant claims that the district court erred by increasing his punishment as a career offender when the government failed to allege both prior offenses in the information it filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851(a)(1) (1988). Although the defendant did not raise the government's lack of compliance in the district court, the court was without authority to impose an enhanced sentence unless the statutory requirements were met. United States v. Noland, 495 F.2d 529, 533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 966, 95 S.Ct. 228, 42 L.Ed.2d 181 (1974). Therefore, this court will consider the question on its merits.
The controversy at issue centers upon the different requirements, both substantively and procedurally, for sentence enhancements under the statute and the Guidelines. Title 21, United States Code, section 841(b)(1)(C) states that the defendant's maximum sentence is increased from twenty to thirty years on the basis of a single prior conviction. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that the defendant's status as a career offender increases his sentence from a level 16 range of 41 to 51 months to a level 34 range of 262 to 327 months.
The Guidelines do not contain a requirement that the government file an information in order to rely upon prior offenses. United States v. Wallace, 895 F.2d 487, 490 (8th Cir.1990). However, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851(a)(1) states:
No person who stands convicted of an offense under this part shall be sentenced to increased punishment by reason of one or more prior convictions, unless before trial, or before entry of a plea of guilty, the United States attorney files an information with the court (and serves a copy of such information on the person or counsel for the person) stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The defendant's sentence in this case was increased to 262 months because of his two prior convictions which classified him as a career offender. The defendant argues that the government did not satisfy section 851(a) because it alleged only one of the two prior controlled substance offenses in the information, and therefore failed to state "the previous convictions to be relied upon."
The government responds that section 851 is satisfied when the information alleges only one prior conviction if the defendant's increased sentence under the Guidelines is within the statutory maximum based on that prior conviction. Because the district court used the second prior conviction to increase the Guideline sentence to only 262 months, a period within the statutory maximum of 30 years, the government maintains that the notice requirement was satisfied.
The courts are divided on this issue. See United States v. Wallace, 895 F.2d 487, 490 (8th Cir.1990); Marshall, 910 F.2d at 1244-45; contra United States v. Williams, 899 F.2d 1526, 1529 (6th Cir.1990). In Wallace, the court observed that the Guidelines became effective after Congress passed section 851 but say nothing that requires the government to file an information in order to rely upon prior offenses. Wallace, 895 F.2d at 490. The court reasoned, therefore, that section 851 was limited to situations in which a defendant's statutory maximum or minimum is enhanced and not to situations where the defendant's increased sentence under the Guidelines is within a statutory range. Id. After full consideration, we are persuaded that the interpretation adopted by the Wallace court is correct.
The problem presented to this court is to determine what interpretation to give to the phrase "increased punishment by reason of one or more prior convictions" within section 851(a)(1). To correctly interpret this statutory language, we " 'must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole.' " Aulston v. United States, 915 F.2d 584, 589 (10th Cir.1990) (quoting Sullivan v. Everhart, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 960, 964, 108 L.Ed.2d 72 (1990)). Applying this canon of statutory construction, we conclude that section 851 is satisfied when the government provides notice of one prior conviction and the defendant's Guideline sentence is within the statutory maximum authorized on the basis of that prior conviction.
Section 851 was enacted as part of comprehensive drug legislation in the Controlled Substances Act of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anixter v. Home-Stake Production Co., HOME-STAKE
...notice of appeal, we may consider changes in governing law arising during the pendency of the appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Novey, 922 F.2d 624, 629 (10th Cir.1991). In Plaut, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of § 27A(b). That subsection requires reinstatement, upon ......
-
US v. Savely, 88-10034-01.
...and if he did, he would not be faulted for failing to object or appeal given the established precedent in Duncan. See U.S. v. Novey, 922 F.2d 624, 629 n. 5 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2861, 115 L.Ed.2d 1028 A sentence is illegal if it exceeds the statute under which t......
-
Prou v. U.S.A.
...considered a section 851(a)(1) claim on direct review despite the defendant's failure to raise the issue below. See United States v. Novey, 922 F.2d 624, 627 (10th Cir. 1991). In the other, the Sixth Circuit suggested, albeit in dictum, that a knowing and intelligent waiver of the section 8......
-
U.S. v. Novey, 95-6249
...on the false statements charge. The district court's calculation of Novey's sentence was affirmed by this court. See United States v. Novey, 922 F.2d 624 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1234, 111 S.Ct. 2861, 115 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1991). However, effective November 1, 1994, the United States......