United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30867

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Furrell Johnson, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:23-CR-13-1 

______________________________

Before Southwick, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Defendant Furrell Johnson pleaded guilty to carjacking, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2119(1), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of 

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

The presentence report (“PSR”) correctly stated that the Guidelines 

sentence for Johnson’s brandishing offense was 84 months to be served 

consecutively to the carjacking sentence. That is because the Guidelines 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 3, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30867 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
No. 23-30867

2

sentence for a violation of § 924(c) “is the minimum term of imprisonment 

required by statute,” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.4(b), which is 

seven years (84 months), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). See United States v. 

Juarez, 812 F.3d 432, 436 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).

Although the district court adopted the PSR without change, it also

indicated at various points that the Guidelines sentence for the brandishing 

offense was a range of 84 months to life, rather than simply 84 months. For 

example, at one point the district court told Johnson he was “looking 

at . . . seven to life on the second count.” Also, after imposing a sentence of 

156 months for the brandishing offense, the district court told Johnson that 

he had received a Guidelines sentence. Then in the district court’s statement 

of reasons, it again stated that it was adopting the PSR without change but

listed the Guidelines range for the brandishing offense as 84 to life and 

indicated that it had imposed a within-Guidelines sentence.

We faced a similar situation in Juarez. There too a district court 

appeared to believe that the Guidelines sentence for the defendant’s 

brandishing offense was 84 months to life, rather than simply 84 months. Id. 

But, also like this case, “[t]he inconsistencies between the district court’s 

statements at sentencing, the PSR, and the [statement of reasons]” made it 

unclear whether the district court understood that the defendant’s sentence 

“exceeded the Guidelines sentence.” Id. at 436–37. Because “[c]riminal 

sentences must reveal with fair certainty the intent of the court,” we vacated

the sentence and remanded for clarification. Id. at 437 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Both parties ask us to do the same here. 

Although the district court has discretion to impose an above-Guidelines 

Case: 23-30867 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
No. 23-30867

3

sentence, we are not certain that was its intent.1 Accordingly, we VACATE 

Johnson’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

_____________________

1 We need not reach the standard of review because the proper remedy in this 

situation, as in Juarez, is to vacate and remand for clarification, which the parties 

acknowledge. See Juarez, 812 F.3d at 437.

Case: 23-30867 Document: 66-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/03/2024