Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/ca8/c596447/united-states-v-harlan-brent-gullickson
Timestamp: 2020-07-07 08:49:30
Document Index: 331108473

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 2241', '§ 3147', '§ 3147', '§ 3141', '§ 3584', '§ 5', '§ 994', '§ 5', '§ 994', '§ 994', '§ 5', 'art, 917', '§ 5', '§ 3584', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 3553', '§ 4', '§ 5']

United States v. Harlan Brent Gullickson, Eighth Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
United States v. Harlan Brent Gullickson , 981 F.2d 344 ( 1992 )
981 F.2d 344
Harlan Brent GULLICKSON, Appellant.
We review the district court's application of the guideline and relevant statutes de novo. United States v. West, 942 F.2d 528, 530 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Werlinger, 894 F.2d 1015, 1016 (8th Cir.1990). Absent Ex Post Facto Clause concerns, the guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing apply. See, e.g., United States v. Edgar, 971 F.2d 89, 93 n. 4 (8th Cir.1992). Gullickson was sentenced on February 10, 1992. Therefore, the 1991 version of section 5G1.3, which governs imposition of a sentence on a defendant subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, applies.
Section 5G1.3(c) provides in part that "the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run consecutively to the prior unexpired term of imprisonment to the extent necessary to achieve a reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense." Application note four directs the sentencing court to determine the total punishment for all the offenses as if U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2 were applicable. After determining this total punishment, "[t]o the extent practicable, the court shall impose a sentence for the instant offense that results in a combined sentence that approximates the total punishment that would have been imposed under § 5G1.2 ... had all the offenses been federal offenses for which sentences were being imposed at the same time." U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n. 4).
Section 5G1.3(c) authorizes a court to order a sentence to run consecutively to prior unexpired sentences "to the extent necessary to achieve a reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense." Application of section 5G1.3(c) "is intended to result in an appropriate incremental punishment for the instant offense that most nearly approximates the sentence that would have been imposed had all the sentences been imposed at the same time." U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (backg'd). "If the sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is adequate to achieve the total punishment, then the sentences on all counts shall run concurrently, except to the extent otherwise required by law." U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c). Consecutive sentences may be necessary to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment "[i]f the total punishment exceeds the highest statutory maximum." United States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d 1090, 1097 (9th Cir.1991). Here, however, the federal offense for which Gullickson was sentenced carried a statutory maximum of life. See 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(2). Accordingly, a consecutive sentence is not necessary to allow imposition of a sentence within the total punishment range of 121 to 151 months, and sections 5G1.2(c) and 5G1.3(c) indicate that a concurrent federal sentence is appropriate here.
We reject this argument. Section 2J1.7 provides for a three-level increase to an offense level, "[i]f an enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 applies." The statute mandates an enhanced sentence for "[a] person convicted of an offense committed while released under this chapter...." 18 U.S.C. § 3147. The chapter in which section 3147 appears is Chapter 207 of Title 18, which governs release of defendants pending trial, sentencing, or appeal. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3143. Gullickson's status as a probationer does not fall within any of these categories. We therefore conclude that Gullickson was not on release status when he committed the federal crime, and he is not subject to the section 2J1.7 increase.4
The government next contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) authorized the district court to order the federal sentence to run consecutively to the unexpired state sentences notwithstanding U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). The plain language of section 3584(a), read in isolation, appears to support this argument because it grants district courts discretion to order either consecutive or concurrent sentences when sentencing a defendant already subject to an unexpired term of imprisonment.5 Section 3584(a), however, does not exist in a vacuum. Section 3584(b) places limits on this discretion by providing that "[t]he court, in determining whether the terms imposed are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall consider ... the factors set forth in section 3553(a)." Section 3553(a)(4) states that courts must consider "the kinds of sentences and the sentencing range ... set forth in the guidelines that are issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(1) ... (Duties of the Commission)." The Sentencing Commission issued U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(1)(D). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(b)(1), however, the Commission must make the guidelines consistent with Title 18, including section 3584. We must attempt to interpret these provisions in a manner that gives effect to them all, if possible. See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 249-50, 105 S. Ct. 2587, 2594-95, 86 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1985); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-39, 75 S. Ct. 513, 519-20, 99 L. Ed. 615 (1955).
We have previously noted the existence of a potential conflict between the guideline and the statute, but found it unnecessary to resolve the issue. United States v. Creed, 897 F.2d 963, 965 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smitherman, 889 F.2d 189 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1036, 110 S. Ct. 1493, 108 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1990). A number of courts have addressed this issue, and the majority have concluded that section 3584 and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 can be harmonized. See, e.g., United States v. Shewmaker, 936 F.2d 1124, 1127-28 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 884, 116 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1992); United States v. Stewart, 917 F.2d 970, 972-73 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Miller, 903 F.2d 341, 345-49 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Rogers, 897 F.2d 134, 136-37 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Fossett, 881 F.2d 976, 980 (11th Cir.1989).6 These courts hold that " § 5G1.3 is reconcilable with 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) because § 5G1.3 does not preclude a court from departing
from the Guidelines." Shewmaker, 936 F.2d at 1127; see also Miller, 903 F.2d at 349; Rogers, 897 F.2d at 137; Fossett, 881 F.2d at 980. The Ninth Circuit, which had held to the contrary in Wills, recently adopted this view and requires district courts to follow guidelines departure procedures to impose consecutive rather than overlapping sentences under U.S.S.G. §§ 5G1.2 and 3D1.2. See United States v. Pedrioli, 931 F.2d 31, 32 (9th Cir.1991).
We adopt the majority view and hold that sentencing courts do not have discretion, under section 3584(a), to ignore section 5G1.3(c). Sentencing courts, therefore, must follow the procedures set out in the guideline and impose sentence accordingly. A sentencing court may, however, exercise discretion under section 3584(a) and depart from the sentencing range established by section 5G1.3(c) when sufficient justification exists. In determining whether sufficient justification for departure exists, district courts must follow usual guidelines procedures. See Rogers, 897 F.2d at 137 ("[i]n some cases, the particular guideline at issue may suggest circumstances or factors that, if present, may provide the basis for departure."); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), (c); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3; U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. K.
Section 3584(a) provides in relevant part that multiple terms of imprisonment "may run concurrently or consecutively." Some circuits have adopted the government's position and have held earlier versions of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 incompatible with section 3584(a) to the extent the guideline removed or limited the discretion granted by the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Wills, 881 F.2d 823, 826 (9th Cir.1989)
DocketNumber： 92-1398
Citation Numbers： 981 F.2d 344
Filed Date： 12/8/1992
United States v. Robin F. Wills , 881 F.2d 823 ( 1989 )
United States v. Gwendolyn Fossett , 881 F.2d 976 ( 1989 )
United States v. Joel Smitherman , 889 F.2d 189 ( 1989 )
United States v. Dennis Allen Werlinger , 894 F.2d 1015 ( 1990 )
United States v. Estelle Rogers , 897 F.2d 134 ( 1990 )
United States v. James Ellis Creed , 897 F.2d 963 ( 1990 )
United States v. John Timothy Miller , 903 F.2d 341 ( 1990 )
United States v. Richard D. Pedrioli, (Two Cases) , 931 F.2d 31 ( 1991 )
United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Robert J. ... , 936 F.2d 1124 ( 1991 )
United States v. Jeffrey L. West , 942 F.2d 528 ( 1991 )
United States v. Horst Werner Joetzki, United States of ... , 952 F.2d 1090 ( 1991 )
United States v. James Edgar , 971 F.2d 89 ( 1992 )
United States v. Bell , 46 F.3d 442 ( 1995 )
United States v. McCarthy , 77 F.3d 522 ( 1996 )
United States v. Gary Allen Kelly, United States of America ... , 989 F.2d 980 ( 1993 )
United States v. Michelle Ann Bell , 991 F.2d 1445 ( 1993 )
United States v. George Lawrence Ogg , 992 F.2d 265 ( 1993 )
United States v. Shanton Hunter , 993 F.2d 127 ( 1993 )
United States v. Jollie Rocky Allen Smith, III , 997 F.2d 396 ( 1993 )
United States v. Virgil Washington , 17 F.3d 230 ( 1994 )
United States v. Paul W. Brewer, Also Known as Mark A. ... , 23 F.3d 1317 ( 1994 )
United States v. Byron K. Haney , 23 F.3d 1413 ( 1994 )
United States v. Leland Ewing Sales, United States of ... , 25 F.3d 709 ( 1994 )
United States v. Peter F. Strassburger, United States of ... , 26 F.3d 860 ( 1994 )
United States v. Joshua Carl Redman , 35 F.3d 437 ( 1994 )
United States v. Ron Erving , 35 F.3d 568 ( 1994 )
United States v. Larry A. Hensley , 36 F.3d 39 ( 1994 )
United States v. Norman Eugene French, Also Known as Jim ... , 46 F.3d 710 ( 1995 )
United States v. Greg Robert Lyons , 47 F.3d 309 ( 1995 )