United States v. Shields

• Decision Date: 01 September 2022
• Docket Number: 19-2717
• Citation: 48 F.4th 183
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Clifton SHIELDS, a/k/a D, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

48 F.4th 183

UNITED STATES of America

v.Clifton SHIELDS, a/k/a D, Appellant

No. 19-2717

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued September 28, 2021

Opinion Filed: September 1, 2022

David R. Fine [ARGUED], Brian J. Smith, K&L Gates, 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101, Counsel for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae

Daryl F. Bloom [ARGUED], Eric Pfisterer, Office of United States Attorney, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754, 220 Federal Building and Courthouse, Harrisburg, PA 17108, Counsel for Appellee

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

In the four years since Congress enacted the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194, the parameters of the resentencing proceedings it authorizes have evolved as courts labored to understand what the Act requires, what it permits, and what it prohibits. What has remained consistent, however, are background principles of sentencing law, including a court's foundational obligations to allow the parties an opportunity to make arguments and to consider all nonfrivolous arguments they present. Here, Appellant Clifton Shields, appealing the District Court's decision to reduce his sentence from 360 to 262 months' imprisonment under the First Step Act, contends that the Court abused its discretion by failing to consider his arguments concerning intervening changes in law affecting his career-offender status and by denying him the opportunity to make other arguments in favor of a downward variance. Because the Court erred in finding that it did not have the discretion to consider these arguments, and because it denied Shields the opportunity to make his case in full, we will vacate his reduced sentence and remand for resentencing.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In 2008, Shields was convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). In anticipation of Shields's sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a Presentence Report (PSR) in which it found that his offense level was 37, based on the quantity of drugs involved, his possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with the conspiracy, and his status as a "career offender" as a result of (1) his 1995 conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of Maryland law and (2) his 2002 conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of Maryland law. With the criminal history category of VI, which automatically applied due to his career-offender designation, this calculation resulted in an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life.

At sentencing, Shields raised two objections to the PSR that are relevant to this appeal: one, to the enhancement for the use of a firearm in connection with the offense,¹ and the other, to the drug quantity attributed to him, which exceeded that found by the jury.² The District Court declined to rule on either because, as Shields's counsel conceded, neither would have had any effect on his Guidelines range given his career-offender status. The Court sentenced Shields to a term of 360 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by five years' supervised release.

At the time Shields was sentenced, an offense involving 50 or more grams of crack cocaine triggered a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, while an offense involving powder cocaine would not result in the same mandatory minimum unless the drug quantity was 100 times as great. The following year, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, to reduce this and other disparities between the sentencing schemes for crack and powder cocaine. Shields became eligible for resentencing under the new regime in 2018, when Congress passed the First Step Act, which authorized district courts to "impose a reduced sentence" for qualifying movants "as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act ... were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed." § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222.

Shields sought relief under the First Step Act by filing a motion for resentencing under § 404(b) in 2019. Notably, his case had by that time been reassigned to a different judge because the judge who oversaw his trial and imposed his original sentence had passed away. In his § 404(b) motion, Shields requested a full, in-person sentencing hearing or, in the alternative, the opportunity to file a sentencing memorandum with supplemental documentation because he "wishe[d] to present evidence of his post-sentence rehabilitation, including information from family members and others." United States v. Shields , No. 1:08-cr-00314-MEM-2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2019), Dkt. No. 252 [hereinafter "First Step Act Mot."] at 13–14. He also sought to dispute his career-offender status, as he believed one of his prior convictions would no longer be considered a predicate offense, and to renew his objections to the firearm enhancement and the drug weight used to calculate his Guidelines range. Shortly after filing his reply brief, Shields submitted two "supplements" to demonstrate his rehabilitation, consisting of his Bureau of Prisons Individualized Reentry Plan and numerous certificates of completion and achievement from classes and other programs he had attended in prison.

Without addressing Shields's request to submit a sentencing memorandum, the District Court issued an opinion finding that he qualified for resentencing, denying his request for a full resentencing hearing, and reducing his sentence to 262 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by four years' supervised release. The Court also declined to consider "whether under current law [Shields] would be considered a career offender" because it believed that "[t]he First Step Act does not permit the court to consider other statutory or sentencing guideline amendments enacted since the date the defendant committed his or her offense." United States v. Shields , No. 1:08-cr-00314-MEM-2 (M.D. Pa. July 10, 2019), Dkt. No. 262 [hereinafter "Dist. Ct. Op."] at 8 n.3 (quoting United States v. Crews , 385 F. Supp. 3d 439, 447 n.7 (W.D. Pa. 2019) ). It then proceeded to consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and noted that the reduced sentence it was imposing, at the bottom of Shields's amended Guidelines range, reflected its consideration of those factors as well as the documents Shields had submitted as evidence of rehabilitation.

On appeal, Shields contends that the District Court erred by refusing to consider whether he currently qualifies as a career offender and declining to rule on his objections to drug weight and the firearm enhancement. He also argues that the Court erred in denying him a resentencing hearing.

Shields was initially represented by counsel on appeal, but after his opening brief was filed, his counsel filed a motion to withdraw and Shields moved to proceed pro se, citing his counsel's refusal to include certain arguments that he wished to press. We granted those motions³ and then appointed amicus curiae to address whether the District Court erred by disposing of Shields's motion without (1) holding a hearing and/or (2) granting Shields's request for permission to file a sentencing memorandum.⁴

In view of two opinions we handed down after the District Court's resentencing in this case, United States v. Easter , 975 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2020), and United States v. Murphy , 998 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 2021), as amended (Aug. 4, 2021), amicus agreed with Shields that the District Court had erred by declining to recalculate Shields's Guidelines range at the time of resentencing and by refusing to reassess his career-offender designation. Amicus also supported Shields's view that the District Court should have held an in-person sentencing hearing because the judge who resentenced him was not the same judge who imposed his original sentence. At a minimum, amicus urged, the Court should have allowed Shields to file a sentencing memorandum with additional exhibits.

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The District Court had jurisdiction over the initial criminal proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and jurisdiction to consider Shields's request for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) and § 404 of the First Step Act, 132 Stat. at 5222. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

We review a criminal sentence for a "violation of law," 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), which includes "(i) matters of statutory interpretation over which we have plenary review, as well as (ii) questions about reasonableness," which we review for abuse of discretion. Easter , 975 F.3d at 322 (quoting United States v. Manzella , 475 F.3d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 2007) ). Where a district court finds a defendant eligible for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) but either declines to reduce the sentence or imposes a reduced sentence with which the movant is not satisfied, we review for abuse of discretion. See Easter , 975 F.3d at 322 ; Murphy , 998 F.3d at 553–54.

III. Discussion

This case raises two questions concerning resentencing under the First Step Act. As we explain below, the first—whether a district court, short of recalculating the benchmark Guidelines range, is required to consider a defendant's arguments regarding intervening developments in law or changes in the defendant's circumstances—was just answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in Concepcion v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 213 L.Ed.2d 731 (2022). The second question relates to the procedures adopted at resentencing, including...