CLICK TO READ United States v. Henry Martin Steiger, Docket # 22-10742

In September 2017, Steiger pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349, and three counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2. His Pre-Sentence Investigation Report calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 0-6 months, and noted that he was eligible for probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(1). In December 2017, the district court sentenced Steiger to three years of probation.

In September, 2019, the United States Probation Office filed a petition for revocation of Steiger’s probation, alleging that Steiger had committed nine violations. one of those violations included a conviction in Florida state court for Second Degree Murder after trial. The murder took place after probation started. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. The facts from the Florida District Court of Appeal decision was read into the record. Defendant’s attorney argued that Defendant had hired an attorney to file a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence.

The District Court found that Defendant violated the conditions of his probation. The District Court noted that the Guidelines range for the violation was 12-18 months imprisonment, but sentenced him to the maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. The defense asked for time served, and Defendant argued to the court that the facts of the case from the appellate decision were inaccurate, the entire record should be considered, and argued that his conviction would probably be vacated. The defense did not object after sentence was imposed.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The Court found that generally, if a defendant fails to specifically object at the time of sentencing to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the district court, the Circuit Court of Appeals reviews for plain error. However, the Court of Appeals reviews de novo whether the district court stated a specific reason for imposing a sentence outside the guideline range as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2), even when the defendant did not object on this ground before the district court. Here, the District Court did not give any reason for why it was imposing an above-guideline sentence. But when a district court imposes an above-guideline sentence, as the court did here, a specific statement of explanation is required. The case was remanded for a resentencing proceeding.

CLICK TO READ United States v. Noah Jones, Docket # 22-11461

Defendant pled guilty to Felon in Possession of a Firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after the Defendant fled from police during a traffic stop, crashed, and fled on foot. Two loaded guns were found in the car. As part of the plea agreement, the Government agreed to dismiss one of the counts of gun possession and recommend a sentence a the low end of the Guideline range. His Sentencing Guidelines range was calculated at 46-57 months, in part because Defendant had a prior robbery conviction that was deemed a crime of violence, and because he received a 2-level enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death in the course of fleeing from police. Additionally, Defendant had a pending state murder charge pending wherein he was accused of killing a man.

At the sentencing, neither side brought up the pending state murder charge. However, the District Court commented on the charge, stating that “he shot and killed somebody…So it appears to me that’s the reason that he has a firearm is to use it against someone.” The Court commented extensively on the murder charge, assuming that Defendant committed that crime. The defense objected to the District Court’s statements, and the objection was overruled. The District Court then imposed a sentence of 84 months – 27 months more than the high end of the Guidelines range.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable.

A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court commits a “significant procedural error” such as failing to calculate or incorrectly calculating the guidelines range, treating the guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence, or selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts.

Here, the district court had no evidence—only an unproven charge on which to base its conclusion that Jones killed someone with a gun. This was procedurally unreasonable. As a result, the sentence was reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.