United States v. Lee

• Decision Date: 04 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-2391,18-2391
• Citation: 974 F.3d 670
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manndrell Evann LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

974 F.3d 670

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Manndrell Evann LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-2391

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: October 25, 2019

Decided and Filed: September 4, 2020

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Manndrell Lee appeals his sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment for possession of a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), a sentence which reflects an upward variance of almost two years from the high end of Lee's 30 to 37 months guidelines range. The district court imposed this extreme variance purportedly due to Lee's criminal history. A district court is certainly able to vary upward from a defendant's advisory guidelines range based on his criminal history and a specific need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). But where, as here, nothing uniquely problematic about the defendant's criminal history demonstrates a specific need for deterrence beyond that already captured in the guidelines range, our case law has recognized that some meaningful relationship between the offense of conviction and a defendant's alleged likelihood of reoffending is needed. Because Lee's criminal history has little bearing on the instant offense, it does not justify the two-year upward variance that the district court imposed, which nearly doubled Lee's recommended sentence under the guidelines. We therefore vacate Lee's sentence and remand for resentencing.

BACKGROUND

Manndrell Lee is thirty-nine years old. Over fifteen years ago, at the age of twenty-one, Lee was convicted of second degree criminal sexual conduct ("CSC") after he pleaded guilty to engaging in sexual activity with a fourteen year old whom he met at a bar that required patrons to be at least eighteen years old to enter.¹ This incident changed the course of Lee's life.

He was originally sentenced to only 12 months’ imprisonment. However, after completing his 12-month sentence, Lee violated his probation by failing to comply with sex offender registration laws and failing to secure a job. Accordingly, his probation was revoked and he was reincarcerated.

From 2004 to 2018, Lee consistently violated the conditions of his parole, most often by failing to comply with sex offender registration laws and the terms of his location monitoring.² Lee was punished and incarcerated for each of those violations. In fact, as a result of Lee's many parole violations, what was originally a 12-month sentence for his CSC offense from 2003 turned into a largely continuous period of fifteen years of incarceration.

In 2018, while on parole after his latest release from custody, Lee was riding as a passenger in his girlfriend's car. Law enforcement initiated a traffic stop and after instructing Lee to exit the vehicle, Lee attempted to flee. Law enforcement tackled him and discovered that he was in possession of an unregistered firearm. Lee subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j).

This is the instant offense for which Lee was sentenced in the present case: possession of a stolen firearm. It was the first firearm offense in Lee's criminal history. Lee was not being sentenced anew for his fifteen-year-old CSC offense, and he was not being sentenced anew for his multiple parole violations.

Of course, as relevant here, Lee's advisory guidelines range for the instant offense accurately reflected his criminal history. He was assigned the maximum three points for his 2003 CSC conviction. He was also assigned the maximum three points for each of his other adult convictions within the applicable time period—failure to comply with the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act in 2010, and a drug possession/resisting arrest conviction in 2015.

The PSR rightly did not treat Lee's multiple parole violations as separate offenses in assigning points but instead referred each violation back to his original sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k) ("In the case of a prior revocation of [parole], add the original term of imprisonment to any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation."). This method of dealing with parole violations is intentional under the guidelines in order to allay concerns about double jeopardy and undue harshness, given that Lee has already been incarcerated for each of his parole violations. See id. cmt. n.11 ("Rather than count the original sentence and the resentence after revocation [of probation, parole, mandatory release, or supervised release] as separate sentences, the sentence given upon revocation should be added to the original sentence of imprisonment, if any, and the total should be counted as if it were one sentence . By this approach, no more than three points will be assessed for a single conviction, even if probation or conditional release was subsequently revoked." (emphasis added)). The PSR also did not assign Lee points for his two, decades-old juvenile adjudications, which occurred at the ages of twelve and fifteen respectively, but that was correct under the guidelines in order to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d) ; see also id. cmt. n.7 ("[F]or offenses committed prior to age eighteen, only those that resulted in adult sentences of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month, or resulted in imposition of an adult or juvenile sentence or release from confinement on that sentence within five years of the defendant's commencement of the instant offense are counted.").³

Based on this criminal history, Lee was initially assessed a criminal history score of 9. However, he received an additional two points for being on parole at the time of the instant offense, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), resulting in a final criminal history score of 11. His corresponding criminal history category was V, the second highest category available.

Based on a criminal history category of V, Lee's guidelines range for the instant offense was 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment.⁴ Notwithstanding that the advisory guidelines range accurately reflected Lee's criminal history, the district court decided to drastically vary upward from the high end of that range based on three things: (1) Lee's "long and serious criminal history," (2) his parole violations and disciplinary violations in custody, and (3) his CSC offense from 2003, which the district court found "troubling." (Statement of Reasons, R. 35, Pg. ID 132; Sent. Hr'g Tr., R. 41, Pg. ID 189.)

Lee now appeals his 60-month sentence, arguing that the district court's 23-month upward variance was substantively unreasonable.

DISCUSSION

This Court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Simply put, a defendant's sentence is substantively unreasonable if it is too long. United States v. Rayyan , 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). A sentence is too long when it is "greater than necessary" to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ("The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection."); accord, e.g. , Holguin-Hernandez v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 762, 765–66, 206 L.Ed.2d 95 (2020). These sentencing goals include the need for the sentence "(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(D).

When determining whether these sentencing goals are met, "district courts must begin their analysis with the Guidelines and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process." Rosales-Mireles v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904, 201 L.Ed.2d 376 (2018) (emphasis in original) (quoting Peugh v. United States , 569 U.S. 530, 541, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013) ). "Courts are not bound by the Guidelines, but even in an advisory capacity the Guidelines serve as ‘a meaningful benchmark’ in the initial determination of a sentence and ‘through the process of appellate review.’ " Id. (quoting Peugh , 569 U.S. at 541, 133 S.Ct. 2072 ). This is because "in the ordinary case, the Commission's recommendation of a sentencing range will reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve § 3553(a) ’s objectives." United States v. Perez-Rodriguez , 960 F.3d 748, 754 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. 85, 109, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) ); see also Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 348–50, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (explaining that the Sentencing Commission calculates its guidelines ranges in an effort to carry out the § 3553(a) objectives).

Accordingly, if a district court determines that a defendant's guidelines range fails to properly reflect the § 3553(a) factors (including the need for deterrence), it must provide a "sufficiently compelling" justification for that conclusion. Gall , 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586. While we review all sentences for an abuse of discretion, we do not presume that a sentence outside of the guidelines range is reasonable. See id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also United States v. Solano-Rosales , 781 F.3d 345, 356 (6th Cir. 2015) ("No presumption of reasonableness applies to sentences that, like the one imposed on [d]efendant, are outside the guidelines range.").⁵ Moreover, a greater variance from the guidelines range requires a more compelling justification. Gall , 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586.

Under this framework, Lee's sentence is substantively unreasonable. In imposing the sentence, the district court placed too much weight on Lee's prior CSC...