Opinion ID: 675762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Ex Post Facto Clause to the Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 42 In addition to challenging his conviction, Dr. Aman also challenges the three-level enhancement he received for threatening an official victim. Specifically, he argues on appeal that the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time the letter was sent to Judge Becker did not include her within the definition of official. 43 At issue here is the retroactive application of Sentencing Guideline Sec. 3A1.2(a), which requires a court to increase a defendant's offense level by three if the defendant threatened an official. The version of Sec. 3A1.2(a) in effect when Dr. Aman sent the letter threatening Judge Becker provided as follows: Sec. 3A1.2. Official Victim 44 If-- 45 (a) the victim was a law enforcement or corrections officer; a former law enforcement or corrections officer; an officer or employee included in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1114; a former officer or employee included in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1114; or a member of the immediate family of any of the above, and the offense of conviction was motivated by such status; 46 . . . . . 47 increase by 3 levels. 48 U.S.S.G. Sec. 3A1.2(a) (1991). Under this version, Judge Becker was not an official victim and thus Dr. Aman's offense level could not have been increased. 49 This section, however, was amended effective November 1, 1992, and consequently the amended version was in effect when Dr. Aman was sentenced. The amended guideline greatly expanded those who could be an official victim for purposes of the enhancement. Under the amended guideline, a sentencing court was instructed to increase the offense level by three if the victim was a government officer or employee; a former government officer or employee; or a member of the immediate family of any of the above, and the offense of conviction was motivated by such status. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3A1.2(a) (1992). Judge Becker fell within this definition of official victim and therefore the sentencing court increased Dr. Aman's offense level accordingly. The increase in offense level translated into an increase in sentence as well; the applicable sentencing range increased from 18-24 months to 27-33 months. 50 Dr. Aman submits that retroactive application of the newer guideline, which includes Judge Becker within its definition, results in a harsher sentence, and therefore violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We note, at the outset, that Dr. Aman failed to make this argument below and, consequently, this argument must be deemed waived. See United States v. Rivero, 993 F.2d 620, 623 (7th Cir.1993). Nevertheless, because [a] sentence based on an incorrect guideline range constitutes an error affecting substantial rights, United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 270, 273 (7th Cir.1994), we shall reverse if we find plain error. 51 Although there was an earlier debate in this circuit regarding the applicability of the Ex Post Facto prohibition to the Sentencing Guidelines, 10 the issue now has been decided. In United States v. Seacott, 15 F.3d 1380 (7th Cir.1994), this court determined that the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibited the application of a newer, more severe, guideline to a defendant. Every circuit addressing this question has come to the same conclusion. 11 Indeed, the government has conceded this point on appeal. Consequently, we follow the law as established in Seacott and recognize that retroactive application of a stricter guideline implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. 52 Applying the amended guideline inflicted greater punishment on Dr. Aman and consequently violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. We hold therefore that it was plain error for the district court to apply the 1992 guidelines which resulted in an increased sentence for Dr. Aman.