Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-05-03197/USCOURTS-caDC-05-03197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony T. Lewis
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 1, 2006 Decided December 15, 2006

No. 05-3197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLANT

v.

ANTHONY T. LEWIS,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 04cr00430-01)

Elizabeth Trosman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the

cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were Kenneth L.

Wainstein, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Roy

W. McLeese, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney. Thomas J. Tourish,

Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.

A. J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, argued the cause for

appellee. With him on the brief was Lisa B. Wright, Assistant

Federal Public Defender. Jonathan S. Jeffress, Assistant Federal

Public Defender, entered an appearance.

USCA Case #05-3197 Document #1011355 Filed: 12/15/2006 Page 1 of 6
2

Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, and GARLAND, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: The United States appeals from the sentence

imposed by the district court in the case of defendant Anthony

T. Lewis. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the

sentence and remand the case for resentencing. 

Lewis pled guilty in the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia to one count of unlawful distribution of 50

grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). According to the government’s

factual proffer, which the defendant agreed was accurate, Lewis

made five sales -- totaling 187.7 grams of cocaine base (“crack”)

-- to an undercover police officer. The Presentence

Investigation Report (PSR) prepared by the U.S. Probation

Office determined that 187.7 grams of crack corresponded to a

base offense level of 34 under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3) (2004).

After adjusting three levels downward for Lewis’ acceptance of

responsibility, the PSR preliminarily set an offense level of 31.

The PSR also noted, however, that Lewis had several prior

felony convictions, including, inter alia, attempted distribution

of cocaine and escape from an institution (a halfway house).

The PSR treated the distribution conviction as a “controlled

substance offense” and the escape conviction as a “crime of

violence,” and thus classified Lewis as a career offender under

the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Under that

guideline, Lewis’ base offense level was increased to 37,

because the statutory maximum sentence for the offense to

which he pled guilty, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), is life. See

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). After adjusting for acceptance of

USCA Case #05-3197 Document #1011355 Filed: 12/15/2006 Page 2 of 6
3

responsibility, the PSR calculated Lewis’ final offense level as

34. Using the career offender guideline, the PSR also fixed

Lewis’ criminal history category at VI. See id. § 4B1.1(b). The

resulting sentencing range, for offense level 34 and criminal

history category VI, was 262-327 months. See id. ch.5, Pt. A

(sentencing table).

At sentencing, the district court rejected the PSR’s

calculations in two important respects. First, the court

concluded that Lewis’ prior conviction for escape from an

institution was not a crime of violence within the meaning of the

Guidelines. Although the district court acknowledged that this

court had previously held otherwise in United States v. Thomas,

361 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2004), it noted that the Supreme Court

later vacated Thomas on another ground, see Thomas v. United

States, 543 U.S. 1111 (2005) (vacating and remanding the case

“for consideration in light of United States v. Booker,” 543 U.S.

220 (2005)). In light of that vacatur, the district court concluded

that Thomas was no longer binding authority. Deciding the

issue de novo, the court held that Lewis’ escape was not a crime

of violence, that his case therefore lacked a prerequisite for

application of the career offender guideline, and that 37 was

therefore not the appropriate base offense level.

The district court then went on to recalculate Lewis’ offense

level. Stating that, under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), the Sentencing Guidelines are now advisory rather than

mandatory and that courts need only consider them along with

the other factors articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district

court declined to employ the guideline applicable to 187.7 grams

of crack. Relying primarily upon a 2002 report to Congress

issued by the United States Sentencing Commission, see

generally United States Sentencing Commission, Report to the

Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (May 2002),

the court found inappropriate the Sentencing Guidelines’ 100-toUSCA Case #05-3197 Document #1011355 Filed: 12/15/2006 Page 3 of 6
4

1

Under the Guidelines’ drug quantity table, a crime involving at

least 150 but less than 500 grams of cocaine base corresponds to an

offense level of 34. The same level applies to a crime involving at

least 15 but less than 50 kilograms of powder cocaine, reflecting the

Guidelines’ 100-to-1 powder/crack ratio. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3).

This ratio is constant throughout the drug quantity table. See id. §

2D1.1(c). Employing a 20-to-1 ratio instead, the district court

“converted” Lewis’ 187.7 grams of crack into 3.75 kilograms of

powder cocaine, which corresponds to an offense level of 30. See id.

§ 2D1.1(c)(5). 

1 drug quantity ratio for offenses involving powder as compared

to those involving crack cocaine, and instead applied a 20-to-1

ratio.1 See Sentencing Tr. 24 (“I think that the sentence that one

gets to in many crack cases, and certainly in this one, meets all

of those purposes [in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] if one uses the 20-to1 ratio rather than the 100-to-1 ratio.”). This yielded a base

offense level of 30 under the Guidelines’ drug quantity table,

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(5). After a three point downward

adjustment for Lewis’ acceptance of responsibility, the district

court fixed Lewis’ final offense level at 27. In light of his

record of prior convictions, Lewis’ criminal history category

remained at VI, even without application of the career offender

guideline. The resulting sentencing range was 130-162 months,

see U.S.S.G. ch.5, Pt. A, and the court imposed a sentence of

162 months.

The government now appeals both the district court’s

holding that escape does not constitute a crime of violence

within the meaning of the career offender guideline, and its

adoption of a 20-to-1 rather than 100-to-1 powder/crack ratio.

The first issue is resolved by our recent decision in United States

v. Adewani, which held that Thomas remains the law of this

circuit, and hence that escape from an institution is a crime of

violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. 467 F.3d 1340, 1343

USCA Case #05-3197 Document #1011355 Filed: 12/15/2006 Page 4 of 6
5

(D.C. Cir. 2006). The defendant does not dispute that Adewani

disposes of the crime-of-violence issue on this appeal.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in holding

that Lewis was not a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Moreover, as both parties agreed at oral argument, the

conclusion that the district court erred regarding the

applicability of the career offender guideline effectively moots

the second issue raised on appeal. As far as is relevant here,

Lewis’ status as a career offender under the Guidelines rests

solely on the nature of his prior offenses and on the statutory

maximum sentence for the offense to which he pled guilty. See

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. It does not depend at all on the Guidelines’

100-to-1 powder/crack ratio. 

Lewis’ base offense level under § 4B1.1 is 37. Guideline

§ 4B1.1(b) provides that the offense level under that guideline

governs if it is higher than the otherwise applicable offense

level. Because 37 is in fact higher than Lewis’ offense level

under the otherwise applicable drug quantity table -- regardless

of whether the court utilizes a 100-to-1 or 20-to-1 ratio, see id.

§ 2D1.1(c)(3), (5) -- the powder/crack ratio has no bearing on

the calculation of Lewis’ guidelines range. Accordingly, we

have no occasion on this appeal to consider the propriety of the

district court’s application of the latter ratio. See, e.g., Gilda

Marx, Inc. v. Wildwood Exercise, Inc., 85 F.3d 675, 679 (D.C.

Cir. 1996) (“Not only judicial economy but the prohibition on

advisory opinions counsel against reaching an issue that might

be mooted or altered by subsequent district court proceedings.”).

The district court’s calculation of Lewis’ sentence was

premised on its holding that Lewis’ prior conviction for escape

did not constitute a crime of violence under the career offender

provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. Because that holding

USCA Case #05-3197 Document #1011355 Filed: 12/15/2006 Page 5 of 6
6

was error, we vacate the sentence and remand the case for

resentencing.

So ordered.

USCA Case #05-3197 Document #1011355 Filed: 12/15/2006 Page 6 of 6