## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3527 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L ERVON L. C AMP BEL L, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- CR-78

—L ynnA delm an, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 27, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 17, 2010

Befo re R OV NER, W I L L I A MS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judge. Lervo n Cam pbel l pled gu il ty to bei ng a fel on in p os se ss ion o fa fi re ar m and re cei ved a fi ft e e n - y e a rma n d a t o r y min i mu m s e nt e n c e . A tth e t i me h e w as se n te n c ed , C am p b ell h ad se rv ed ap p ro x im at ely n in e m on th s o f an u n re lat ed st at e s en te n c e a f t er h is su pervi sed r el eas e had be en r evo ked due to hi s a rr est o n th e fe d e r a l c h a r g e s . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i mp o s e d C a mpbel l ’ s fede ra lse ntence to run co ncurr entl y with the re -2 N o. 09

- 3527

m ainde r o ftha t st at e se nt en ce , b utdi d no t cr edi t th e ni ne m onths he had alr eady s er ved, bel i evi ng tha t U. S
. S
. G. § 5G1. 3( c) di d n o tg i v e i tthe a utho r i t yt o do so. C am p bell ap p eals, arguing that the d istri ct cou rt er re d i n concl ud i ng tha t i t l ack ed the author i ty to i m pose hi s federa lse ntence “fully” concurre ntl y with hi s s tat e s en te n c e. Because the di str i ct c ourthad the discre ti on t o adj ust Cam pbel l ’ s s entence to ta ke i nto account the ti m e he had ser ved on h is undis charg ed sta te ter m , we vacat e hi s s entence and re m and fo r re sente nci ng.

I . B AC KGR OUND On D ec em b er29 , 20 08, M i l w aukee pol i ce o ffi cer s e xecuti ng a sea rch w ar ra nt atCam pbel l ’ s ho m e di scover ed pow der c oca i ne, crac k c oca i ne, and m ar ij uana, and saw Cam pbel lat tem pt to thr ow a gun o ut o fhi s be droo m w i nd ow. A t t h e tim e, Cam pbel lwas on s up er vi sed re l eas e forpri orunrel ated W isco nsi n sta te convi cti ons. A s a r es u lt ofthe new ar re st, the sta te ofW i sco nsi n re vok ed hi s s up er vi sed r el eas e a nd o rder ed Cam pbel lto ser ve thre e y ear s in pri son on the st ate o ffenses . Cam pbel lpl ed gui lty t o bei ng a fel on in posse ssi on o f a fi re ar m i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 9 22(g)(1 ) a nd was sente nced i n fede ra l c ou rto n A ugust 3 1, 20 09, by whi cht i m e he ha d s er ve d a p pr o xi m at ely nine months o fhi s st at e t er m . Ca m pbe l la ckno wl edg ed th athe qu a l i fi e d a s a n a r med c a r eerc r i mi na lu nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 24 (e), su bj ec tin g h im to a fift ee n -ye ar m an d at or y m in im um se ntence. Cam pbel l ’ s guidel i nes r an ge w as 188 to 23 5 m o nths , b utthe di st r i ctc o ur t co nc l ud ed th attheN o. 09

- 3527 3 st atut o r y min i m um was a ppr o pr i at e an d or der ed th e fi ftee n-y earse ntence to run co ncurr entl y with t h e rema i n d e r o fh i s th r e e - y e a r s t a t e t e r m. Cam pbel las ked the co urt to a d j u st hi s federa lse ntence to tak e into acco unt the ni ne m ont h s th at he had al r ea dy se r ve d, s o tha t hi s fede ral te r m woul d b e r un effec ti ve l y “ ful l y ” co nc ur r en t to hi s st at e se nt en ce . The di st r i ctc o ur t i ndi ca te d tha t i t was no t o ppo se d t o do i ng so , bu t d en ied th e re q u es t a fte r c on c l u d i n g t h at it l a c k e d the a utho r i t y t o do s o . Th e c o ur t r e a s o ne d that w hi le U
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1.3(b) w ou ld p erm it a d ow nw ard ad j us tm en t, C am p bell’ s situation fellun d er § 5G 1.3( c), w hi ch did n ot . Sect i on 5 G1. 3( b) st ate s that the di str i ct co urt sho ul d a dj us t a fede r als en te nc e to a cc o untfo r a ny p e r i o d o fi mp r i s o n me n ta l r e a d y s e r v e d o n a s t a t e t e r m, w hen t h e stat e s entence r esul ts fro m an o ffense that w as re l evantco nd uct t o th e federa lo ffense ofco nvi cti on an d led to an inc re as e in th e d efe n d an t ’ s o f f en se lev el. Se cti on 5G1. 3( c) , w hi ch appli es to case s ( l i ke C am pbel l ’ s) i n whi cha de fen dan t was o n s upe rv i se d r el ea se a t th e tim e ofthe i nstant offense and had itr evo ked, pro vide s tha t a sent en ce m ay b e i m p osed to run “con cu rr en tly, pa r ti al l y c o nc ur r en tly, o r c o ns ec ut i ve l y t o the pri orundischar ged te rm of i m pri sonm ent t o achi eve a r e a s o nab l e p un i s hme ntf o r the i ns t a nto ffe ns e . ” U. S
. S
. G. § 5 G 1.3( c)
. U nl i ke § 5 G1. 3( b) , however, § 5G1. 3( c) does not author i ze a dow nw ar d adj ustm ent. A n appli cati on not e p rovide s th at, w ith th e ex cep tion of ex traord inary c ase s, “[ u]nl i ke subsect i on (b) , subse cti on ( c) does not au th o r i ze a n a dj us tmentof the se nt en ce f o r the i ns ta nt offense f ora period of i m pri sonm ent a l re ady se rv ed4 N o. 09

- 3527

o n the u nd i s c ha r g e d t e r m o fi mpr i s o nme nt
. ” U. S
. S
. G. § 5G 1.3, cm t. 3(E ). The di st r i ctc o ur t, afte r re ce i vings uppl ement alb r i efi ng fro m the parti es, co ncl ud ed thati t had no author i ty to gr ant a n adj ustm ent in a § 5G1. 3( c) si tuati on s uch as C am p b ell’s , an d d en ied th e re q u es t. C am p b ell ap p ea ls.

II. A N A L Y S IS Tit l e 1 8, se cti on § 3584 ofthe U ni ted S tat es Code gi ves a di st r i ctc o ur t th e di sc r et i o n to i m po se a te r m o fi m pr i so nm ent e i therco ncurr entl y o r conse cuti vel y t o a pri or un d ischa rged term , taking into cons iderat ion the f acto rs enum er at ed i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( a)
. The g ui del i ne a t i ss ue i n th i s c a s e i s U
. S
. S
. G
. § 5 G 1
. 3 , w hi c h g o v e r n s th e i mposi ti on o fa sente nce th at is s ubj ect to anothe r und i scharg ed ter m o fi m pri sonm ent. The dis tr i ct c ourtw as cor re ct in noting tha t s ubpart ( b) o f§ 5 G1. 3 ex pr es sly a utho r izes a do wnw ar d a dj us tment ofa sente nce to take into acco unt a per i od al re ady se rv ed on a n und i schar ged te rm o f i m pri sonm ent, wh i l e s ubpar t ( c) do es no t. But th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c o nc l udi ng th at this di stincti on in the gui del i ne li m its i ts exer ci se o fdi sc r et i o n. Al th o ug h § 5 G1. 3 ex pr es se s th e S en te nc i ng Comm i ss i o n’ s vi ews abo utho w a c o ur t’ s § 35 84 s en tenci ng d isc re ti on s houl d be e xerci sed, i t doe s no t restrict tha t d iscretion after U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U. S
. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. P ost
- B o o k er, “a debate abo ut how m uch d isc re tio n th e G u id elin es th em s e l v e s c on fer h as th e a ir ofthe schol ast i c. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bangs e ngthong, 550 F. 3dN o. 09

- 3527 5 681, 68 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. S ecti on 5 G1. 3 i s a n i nfo rm at i ve, b u t n ot bi nd i ng, ar ti cul ati on o fa cour t’ s power t o i m pose a s entence concurre ntl y o r conse cuti vel y under § 3 584. N ordoes the § 9 24( e) ( 1) m anda tory m i ni m um to wh i ch Campbe l lis s ubj ec t pr ec l ude the s en te nc e adj us tmenthe see ks. S ecti on 9 24( e) ( 1) sa ys th at a defendant m ust “ be im priso ned
. . . n o tl e s s tha n fi ft e e n yea rs , ” 1 8 U. S
. C. § 92 4( e) ( 1) ( emphas i s adde d)
. W e h av e o n two o cc as i o ns he l d tha t th i s r equi r ementi s sa ti sfi ed so l o nga s a defen d an t’s t ot al per i od ofi ncarc er ati on, st ate and federa l c o mb i n e d , e q u a l s o r e x c e e d s th e s t a t u t o r y min i mu m. F i r st, i n U ni t e d St at e s v. R o ss , 21 9 F
. 3d 592, 59 4- 95 ( 7th C ir. 2000), w e held that un d er § 5G 1.3(b ) a district cou rt cou ld im p ose a sen t e n c e b elow the § 924 (e)( 1) m an d atory m i ni m um to acc ou n t for ti m e s er ved on a r el ate d und i scharg ed sente nce, so l ong as the defendant’s to tal peri od of state and fed eral im p risonm en t equ aled the sta tu tory m i ni m um . Ther e, the de fen dan t br o k e i nt o a n Indi an a hom e a nd st ol e a handgun, l eadi ng to federa lchar ges re l ating to poss ess i on o fa fi re ar m and st ate char ges o f re sid en tia l bu rg lar y. Id. at59 3. By the ti m e the defen d an t w as sente nced i n federa lco urt, he ha d ser ved 34 m onths ofthe sente nce f orhi s s tat e bur gl ar y c onvi ctio n . Id. at59 4. R os s fa c ed a f ifte en -ye ar m an d at or y m in im um se nt e nc e a s a n a r med c a r e e r c r i mi na lu nder § 9 24( e) ( 1) , and the dist ri ct c ou rt sentenced hi m to 18 8 m on th s. Id. Ross ask ed the cour t to sente nce hi m to 154 m onths to tak e into acco u n t th e 3 4 m onths he had al r ea dy se r ve d o n the r el at ed st ate c o nv i ct i o n, b utthe6 N o. 09

- 3527

cour t decl i ned to do so a n d inst ructe d the Burea u of P ri s o n s t o c re d it h im th e t im e in st ea d
. Id. O n a p p e a l, we va c at ed th e s en te n c e, h old in g t h at th e ju d ge co u ld adj ust the defendant’s federa lse nten c e d own w ar d und er § 5G1
. 3(b) , s o l o nga s th e to ta lt i m e se r ve d i n sta te an d fede ral cu s t od y w as no t low er than the fed eral statu tory m i ni m um . Id. at59 4- 95. W e co ncl ud ed that § 9 24( e)
“ d o e s n o ts p e c i fy a n y p a r t i c u l a r w a y i n w h i c h th a ti mpri sonm ent s houl d be a chi eve d,” id. at 59 5, an d th u s: The c o m put at i o n o fthe t o ta lt er m o fi m p ri so nm en t fo r p u rp os e s o f § 92 4(e ) m ay , con sis te n tly wi th A p p l i c a t i o n N o t e 2 t o § 5 G 1
. 3 , b e a c c o mpl i sh ed bya ddi ngup th e numbero fmonths the defe nd ant has ser ved on the re l ated convi cti on and the nu m bero fm onths ass ess ed i n the federa l j udg m en t. The t o ta lmuste qua lo r e xc ee d the sta tutory m andator y m i ni m um o f18 0 m onths. Id. T o h old oth er w is e , w e c on c lu d ed , w ou ld be to “e x alt f orm o ve r substa nce. ” Id. at59 4. W e no ted thatgi vi ng a cre diti n thi s m anner “i s no t a departur e fro m the gui del i ne r ange [ w hi ch w ou l d be pro hibi ted exce pt und er 18 U
. S. C. §§ 35 53(e) o r ( f ) ] ; i t i s s i m plyano therway of achi evi ng the r equi re d peri od ofi m pri sonm ent. ” Id. at59 5. M o r e r ec en tly, i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cr uz , 59 5 F. 3d 744, 74 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , we r e a ffi r med R o ss ’ s inter pret ati on o f § 9 2 4 ( e )
. We c o nfi r med R o ss’ s co ncl usi on that a j ud ge apply i ng§ 9 24 ( e) “ co ul d de ducttha t numbero fmonths fro m the federa l sente nce as l ong as the com bin ed len gth ofthe sta te and fe deralp ris on sentences was not l ess than the fed er al s tatutor y m i ni m um . ” Id. ( co nt r as tingN o. 09

- 3527 7

m andator y m i ni m um l anguage i n § 9 24( e) with that in 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A ))
. Ot he r circuits hav e sim il arly int erp re te d § 92 4(e ). Se e, e . g. , U nited S t at e s v. D r ake, 49 F. 3d 14 38 , 144 0-4 1 (9 th C ir. 19 95 ); U nited Sta tes v. K iefer, 20 F. 3d 874, 876-77 (8th C ir. 1994). The f act that R o ss invo l ved § 5G1. 3( b) and n ot § 5 G1. 3( c) does not l i m i t R o ss’ s a pp l i cabi l i ty to thi s ca se. I t i s § 35 84 that gi ves a sen te nci ng co urt the di scr eti on t o i m pose a co nc ur r en t se nt en ce, ta k i ngi nt o c o ns i der at i o n the f acto rs se t for th i n § 3 553( a)
. 18 U
. S.C. § 3 584(b)
. S ecti on 5G1. 3 i s a dvis or y, and thus i ts dist i nc tio n bet w een s ubse ct i o ns (b) a nd ( c) i s i nf o r m at i ve i n, b utno t bindi ng o n, th e wa y a d i s t r i c tc o u r te x e r c i s e s i t s § 3 5 8 4 d i s cr et i o n. A n d cl e a r ly, R o ss’ s inter preta ti on o f§ 924( e) does not depend on the appli cabi l i ty of a speci fi c gui del i ne. So, con trary to i ts con clusion at sent e n c in g , the d istri ct cou rt had the d i scr eti on t o adj ust Cam pbel l ’ s s entence to ac co untf o r th e ti m e he ha d se r ve d o n h i s st at e r ev o ca ti o n. O f co u rs e, th e q u es tio n of w h et h er th e c ou rth as th is d isc re tio n is d ist in c t fro m th e q u es tio n o fh ow it sh ou ld b e e x er c ise d . T h e t im e fo r w h ich C am p b ell se ek s c re d it i s fro m a pri son ter m forcond uct w hol l y unre l ate d to that und erl yi ng hi s federa lse ntence, and the ar gum ent c an be m ade thatadj usti ng his t erm f orthatti m e pr ovi des h im w ith s om ethi ng o fa w i nd f al l
. S ubsect i ons ( b) and ( c) of§ 5G1. 3 refl ect a s ensibl e pol i cy dist i ncti on be tw een tr ea tm ent o fundischar ged te rm s o fi m pri sonm ent that i nv o l ve r el ev an t co nduc t to th e in st an t o ffen se , a nd th ose th at d o n o t . On rem an d , shou ld th e d istri ct cou rt deci de to m ake t he adj ustm ent Cam pbel lse eks , i ts8 N o. 09

- 3527

r ea so ns f o r do i ngs o s ho ul d b e ar ti cul at ed i n l i g htofthe § 35 53(a) f acto rs and the pol i cy consi derat i ons set f o r thi n § 5 G1. 3. I fth e d istr i ctc o ur t di sa g r ee s wi ththe m et h od olo gy se t fo rt h in § 5G 1.3

— w h ich it n e c es sa rily wi l lb e d oing i fi t g r an ts the a dj us tment

— an adequate expla nati on t o “al l ow fo r m eani n gful appell ate r evi ew an d to p ro m ot e t h e p er c ep t ion of fair s en te n c in g” sh ou ld b e g ive n . G a ll v. U nited S t a t es , 552 U .S. 38 , 50 (2 00 7); s ee a lso U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pla nt an , 1 0 2 F
. 3 d 9 5 3 , 9 5 6 ( 7 th Cir
. 19 96) (c ourthas “si gni fi cant di scr eti on t o i m pose a sente nce wh i ch provi des f ora re aso nabl e incre m ental p u n ish m en t g ive n t h e f a c ts of th e c as e, so lon g a s it state s its r eason s for d oing so.”)
.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Cam pbel l ’ s s entence i s V ACA T ED an d th e ca se is R EMAND ED f orr ese ntenci ng.

8- 17- 10