# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 Guideline s
sentence for Johnson’s brandishing offense was 84 months to be served consecutively to the carjacking sentence. That is because the Guideline s

**_____________________**

* 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: 09/03/2024No. 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 indicat ed at various points that the Guidelines s entence 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, a fter 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 c ourt’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 inconsistenc i es 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 c ertainty 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: 09/03/2024No. 23

- 30867

3 sentence, we are not certain that was its intent. 1 Accordingly, w e **VACATE** Johnson’s sentence and **REMAND** for resentencing.

**_____________________**

1 W e 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