Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01004/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1004

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Fernando Martinez, also known as Silent

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

 Submitted: June 12, 2015

 Filed: May 3, 2016

____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Fernando Martinez pled guilty to possession of fifty grams or more of

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The district court found Martinez to

be a career offender based in part on the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2) of the

United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) and sentenced him to 262 months'

imprisonment. It indicated, alternatively, it would sentence Martinez as a career

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
offender even if he was not a career offender. Martinez appeals, arguing he is not a

career offender and his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The government concedes Martinez is no longer a career offender under the

guidelinesfollowing the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United

States, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557 (2015), but asserts no remand is necessary

because the district court imposed a reasonable alternative sentence that renders any

error harmless. Because we conclude otherwise – that the district court's alternative

sentence is substantively unreasonable – we reverse and remand for resentencing.1

I

Martinez is a twenty-seven-year-old father of three who pled guilty in August

2014 to possession of fifty grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to

distribute. Prior to sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presentence

investigation report (PSIR), which recommended the district court find Martinez to

be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 – a finding that would increase his

guideline sentencing range by nine years – because he committed two crimes as a

teenager that qualify as "crimes of violence."

When Martinez was eighteen, he shot a rifle at two individuals standing outside

a residence as part of a gang-related drive-by shooting. Several individuals, including

two young children, were at the residence at the time of the shooting, but no one was

injured. Martinez was arrested and charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm, a

We have recently held that reliance on the residual clause of U.S.S.G. 1

§ 4B1.2(a)(2) is not correctable on plain error review. See United States v. Ellis, __

F.3d __, 2016 WL 859936, at *3 (8th Cir. Mar. 7, 2016). Because we conclude below

that Martinez preserved his challenge to the residual clause of the guidelines, Ellis

does not apply.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
violation of Nebraska law. Martinez posted bond and was released from custody

while his case was pending.

A few months later, Martinez failed to appear for his pretrial conference and

the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Later that day, officers spotted

Martinez walking with another individual. The officers approached Martinez and one

held him by the wrists and grabbed his handcuffs to place him under arrest. Before

the officer handcuffed him, Martinez twisted, threw his elbow toward the officer

(without making contact), and ran from the officers for a short distance until he was

tackled and arrested. For this conduct, Martinez was charged with escape while

under arrest on a felony charge, also a violation of Nebraska law. He pled no contest

to the charge.

In early 2008, Martinez was sentenced to six- to eight-years' custody for his

unlawful discharge of a firearm conviction, and two- to three-years' custody for his

escape conviction. He was paroled on both charges in November 2010. From the

date of his release until his arrest in March 2014 in this case, his only scoreable

offense was a 2013 conviction for unauthorized use of a propelled vehicle, for which

he paid a $200 fine.

Martinez objected to thePSIR's career offender recommendation on the ground

that his conviction for escape while under arrest on a felony charge was not a crime

of violence. Prior to his sentencing hearing, Martinez filed a brief arguing his escape

conviction was not a crime of violence because it did not "involve[] conduct that

presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another," as required under the

residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Martinez also filed a motion for a

downward variance if the district court found him to be a career offender.

At Martinez's sentencing hearing on December 18, 2014, the district court

found Martinez had a base offense level of 32. After reviewing the charging

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
documents and the change of plea transcript from Martinez's Nebraska escape

conviction, and hearing testimony from Investigator Chris Anderson regarding the

general circumstancesthat arise when making a felony arrest, the district court found

the escape conviction was a crime of violence under the residual clause of U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.2(a)(2). It therefore found Martinez to be a career offender, which enhanced

his offense level to 37. The district court applied a three-level downward adjustment

for acceptance of responsibility, which yielded a total offense level of 34. Martinez

had a criminal history score of 9 points, but his career offender designation placed

him in criminal history category VI, yielding a guideline range of 262 to 327 months.

The district court alternatively found that even if Martinez was not

"technically" a career offender under the guidelines, it would still consider him as

such. It noted the "especially violent nature" of Martinez's behavior, pointing to his

prior convictions for unlawful discharge of a firearm and escape while under arrest

on a felony charge, along with evidence the government presented at sentencing that

Martinez had tiesto local gangs. The district court therefore indicated that even if its

career offender ruling was erroneous, it would still vary upward to a guideline range

of 262 to 327 months. The district court sentenced Martinez to 262 months'

imprisonment.

Martinez timely appealed, arguing the district court erred by finding his

conviction for escape was a crime of violence and his sentence was substantively

unreasonable. After briefing was complete, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v.

United States that the statutory residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act –

which contains language identical to the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) –

is unconstitutionally vague. 135 S. Ct. at 2557. The parties subsequently filed

supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Johnson on this case.

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
II

The government concedes Martinez's conviction for escape is not a crime of

violence post-Johnson, but it argues the district court's (understandable) guidelines

error did not affect the outcome of sentencing because the district court would have

sentenced Martinez to 262 months' imprisonment even if he is not a career offender

under the guidelines. We assume without deciding that Johnson applies to the

residual clause of the guidelines. See United States v. Taylor, 803 F.3d 931 (8th Cir.

2015); see also United States v. Benedict, __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 805694, at *7 (8th

Cir. Mar. 2, 2016) (assuming without deciding that Johnson applies to the residual

clause in the sentencing guidelines).

We must first determine whether Martinez properly preserved a Johnson-type

vagueness challenge to the guidelines. To preserve a claim of error, the defendant

must "inform[] the court—when the court ruling or order is made or sought—of the

action the party wishes the court to take, or the party's objection to the court's action

and the grounds for that objection." Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(b). If the defendant

preserves the claim of error, we review for harmless error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). 

Otherwise, our review is for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).

We find Martinez preserved his vagueness challenge to the residual clause of

the guidelines because he timely raised this objection before his sentencing hearing. 

Prior to sentencing, Martinez filed a brief objecting to the PSIR and explaining why

his escape conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence. The government filed

a response. In his reply, Martinez argued that treating his conviction for escape as a

crime of violence under the residual clause ofthe guidelines could raise constitutional

vagueness issues, and at sentencing the district court described Martinez's reply as

"extremely well-written" and noted it was "very familiar with the issues." Therefore,

Martinez timely and specifically raised his constitutional vagueness objection to the

district court, and he preserved his vagueness objection for appeal. See United States

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549–50 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (holding defendant may preserve

Booker challenge by arguing guidelines were unconstitutional) (citing United States

v. Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d 68, 76 (1st Cir. 2005)).

Because Martinez preserved his guidelines challenge, we review the district

court's career offender finding for harmless error. “Incorrect application of the

Guidelines is harmless error where the district court specifies the resolution of a

particular issue did not affect the ultimate determination of a sentence,” United States

v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Straw,

616 F.3d 737, 742 (8th Cir. 2010)), such as when the district court indicates it would

have alternatively imposed the same sentence even if a lower guideline range applied. 

United States v. Sayles, 674 F.3d 1069, 1072 (8thCir. 2012). An alternative sentence

must be substantively reasonable and it must set forth an alternative "supported by the

law and the record in the case." Id. The district court may vary upward from the

guideline range if the extent of the deviation is supported by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors. United States v. Hummingbird, 743 F.3d 636, 638 (8th Cir. 2014). The

district court must "consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the

justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance." United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)).

The government argues the district court's guideline error was harmless

because the district court would have varied upward to a guideline range of 262 to

327 months' imprisonment even if Martinez's conviction for escape did not make him

a career offender. We disagree that this error was harmless, however, because the

district court's alternative sentence was unsupported by the law. Assuming Martinez

was not a career offender, his guideline range would have been 121 to 151 months'

imprisonment. The district court, however, noted the "especially violent nature ofthe

defendant's behavior reflected throughout the presentence report," and it pointed to

two specific factors: (1) Martinez's prior convictions for unlawful discharge of a

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
firearm and escape while under arrest on a felony charge, and (2) evidence the

government presented atsentencing that Martinez had tiesto local gangs. Therefore,

for its alternative sentence the district court varied upward to a guideline range of 262

to 327 months' imprisonment because it found Martinez should still be considered a

career offender even if he was not "technically" a career offender.

We infer from this statement that the district court believed the escape

conviction was a crime of violence – and Martinez was a career offender – whether

the guidelines classified it as a crime of violence or not. In other words, the district

court sentenced Martinez to an additional nine years because, as a nineteen-year-old, 2

Martinez threw an elbow at a police officer without striking the officer and ran from

police for a short distance. This severe variance is unreasonable.

The district court's other justifications do not support the degree of the upward

variance either. First, Martinez's convictions do not warrant such a severe upward

variance. Martinez's two convictions undoubtedly demonstrate serious, violent

behavior, but the guideline range already accounted for these prior convictions, each

of which received three criminal history points. While a district court may consider

factors already taken into account in the guideline range, "substantial variances based

upon factors already taken into account in a defendant's guidelines sentencing range

seriously undermine sentencing uniformity." United States v. Solis–Bermudez, 501

F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). The violence Martinez

displayed in these two crimes does not support an upward variance of more than

We note, also, that the plea agreement required the government to recommend

2

a sentence at the low end of the guideline range, which would have been 121 to 151

months' imprisonment if the district court had not found Martinez to be a career

offender. Assuming the government complied with the plea agreement and

recommended a sentence close to 121 months' imprisonment, the district court's

upward variance would have been not only nine years above the top end of the

guideline range but eleven years over the government's recommendation.

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
eleven years above the low end of the guideline range, particularly when the

guidelines already accounted for this conduct.3

Second, the evidence the government presented relating to Martinez's gang ties

does not justify a nine-year upward variance either. The government presented

evidence Martinez appeared in music videos along with other members of the East

Side Locos prior to his incarceration. He also appeared with other East Side Locos

gang membersin photographs. While these photos and videosshow Martinez's gang

ties, they do not depict Martinez actively engaging in any violent behavior. And,

more importantly, they do not depict such egregious, violent behavior that they

warrant the substantial upward variance the district court imposed.

While the district court does not need to categorically rehearse the § 3553(a)

factors, "a major departure [from a guidelines sentence] should be supported by a

more significant justification than a minor one." Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. In this case,

The concurrence disputes the severity of Martinez's criminality following his

3

release, noting Martinez's "offenses" of unauthorized use of a vehicle, possession of

methamphetamine and marijuana, and driving under suspension, along with the fact

that he owed $20,000 to his methamphetamine suppliers in Sinaloa, Mexico. 

Martinez's possession of methamphetamine, possession of a "small amount" of

marijuana, and his drug debts are not separate "offenses," however. They are part of

the offense for which he was convicted – possession of fifty grams or more of

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute – and therefore the Guidelines account

for this conduct in the base offense level.

This leaves only two offenses the concurrence highlights: Martinez's prior

convictions for unauthorized use of a vehicle and driving under suspension. The

district court did not discuss these convictions as a basis for its upward variance, and

they do not change our analysis. Even coupled with Martinez's convictions for escape

and unlawful discharge of a firearm, Martinez's convictions for unauthorized use of

a vehicle and driving under suspension do not display such "extremely violent

behavior" that they warrant a nine-year upward variance.

-8-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
the district court gave undue weight to Martinez’s violent past to justify its extreme

deviation from the guideline range. The district court did not "explain [its]

conclusion that . . . an unusually harsh sentence [was] appropriate . . . with sufficient

justifications," and its alternative sentence is therefore unsupported by the law and

the record in this case. Id. at 46. As such, any incorrect application of the career

offender guideline to Martinez cannot be considered harmless error.

III

The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2106.

LOKEN, Circuit Judge, concurring.

Although I agree with Judge Colloton’s dissent in United States v. Taylor, 803

F.3d 931, 933-34 (8th Cir. 2015), our panel is bound by the contrary decision of the

panel majority in Taylor. Therefore, I concur in the decision to remand for

resentencing, with the district court free to consider on remand “whether the residual

clause of the career offender guideline is unconstitutional.” Id. at 933.

I disagree with the court’s conclusion that the district court’s alternative 262-

month sentence was “unsupported by the law.” First, the court assertsthat Martinez’s

criminal history following hisrelease fromprior felony drive-by-shooting and escapefrom-arrest sentences does not support a severe upward variance. But the unlawful

activities summarized in footnote 3 of the court’s opinion were clearly relevant to the

court’s determination of the sentence to impose. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2). 

The court in footnote 3 discounts the relevance of his recent drug trafficking activities

because “[t]hey are part of the offense for which he was convicted.” But in

determining whether to impose an upward variance, a district court “shall consider

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense . . . .” § 3553(a)(1). 

-9-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
Second, the court complains that Martinez’s guidelines range already

accounted for his prior convictions because each received three criminal history

points. Again, this reasoning is contrary to well-established sentencing principles

under the advisory guidelines. “[F]actors that have already been taken into account

in calculating the advisory Guidelines range can nevertheless form the basis of a

variance.” United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012). 

Third, the court criticizes the district court “because it found Martinez should

still be considered a career offender even if he was not ‘technically’ a career

offender.” Supra at 7. The criticism is unwarranted. Leaving aside whether the

residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness, the government’s

concession on appeal that Martinez is no longer a career offender overlooks an issue

the district court will be free to address on remand that may be highly relevant to

whether and to what extent an upward variance is warranted. The state court

Information charged Martinez with “Escape,” a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. “28-912

III FO,” when he “unlawfully removed himself from official detention while under

arrest or detained for a felony charge.” At the hearing when Martinez pleaded no

contest to this charge, the prosecutor described the offense as involving an escape

from arresting officers that included some force and violence. Martinez agreed with

this description. He also acknowledged that the State had agreed not to file additional

charges of resisting arrest and obstructing a police officer, in exchange for Martinez

pleading guilty both to the felony escape charge and to the felony drive-by shooting

charge that led to the arrest from which he tried to escape. The post-plea

4

Commitment document recited that his offense was “escape when under arrest on

felony chg” in violation of section “28-912(5)(A).” 

As the PSR described this offense, “Two individuals . . . were standing in the

4

front yard of the residence when a van drove by and fired numerous shots at the

house. Several individuals, including two young children, were inside the house at

the time of the shooting, but no one was harmed.”

-10-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688 
The Nebraska escape statute, § 28-912, provides that “(5) Escape is a Class III

felony where: (a) The detainee was under arrest for or detained on a felony charge . . .

or (b) The actor employs force, threat, deadly weapon, or other dangerous

instrumentality to effect the escape.” To determine whether a prior offense was a

crime of violence, we apply the modified categorical approach as construed in

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). In United States v. Tucker, 740

F.3d 1177, 1181 (8th Cir. 2014) (en banc), we held that the subsections of § 28-912

are “divisible” offenses. Here, at Martinez’s sentencing for this offense, the

government did not argue that his prior escape offense was a crime of violence under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) because it had “as an element the use, attempted use, or

threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” That issue was of no

significance because the offense qualified under the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2). 

But if the residual clause is now void for vagueness, the district court should be free

to consider on remand whether Martinez’s escape conduct violated § 28-912(5)(b),

and well as (5)(a), and therefore was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.2(a)(1). This may have been a basis for the court’s alternative sentence.

Though I disagree with the court’s reasoning, given the uncertainty that

continues to surround these sentencing issues, and the severe impact of the career

offender issue on Martinez’s advisory guidelinesrange, I agree with the court that the

government has failed to establish that the district court’s alternative sentence renders

any underlying career offender error harmless. Rather, I conclude that justice is best

served by a remand for resentencing that of course will include whether to vary

upward from the court’s final guidelines range determination. Therefore, I concur.

______________________________

-11-

Appellate Case: 15-1004 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Entry ID: 4394688