Opinion ID: 2997735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Increase of Criminal History Category Based on

Text: Prior Conviction Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant’s criminal history score may not include any relevant conduct that is part of the instant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(2) & Application Note 1. “To count as relevant conduct under the federal sentencing guidelines, a drug offense . . . must be part of the same course of conduct, or common scheme or plan, as the offense of conviction.” United States v. Wyss, 147 F.3d 631, 632 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2)); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 Application Note 9. In essence, if the prior conviction stemmed from relevant conduct, then the defendant’s criminal history score cannot be increased based on that prior conviction; if that conviction was not based on relevant conduct, then the criminal history score may be so increased. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1 & 4A1.2(2). In the instant case, Olson pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In pleading guilty, Olson conceded that he had been selling marijuana for the last 10 years—a charge contained in the government’s presentence report. Therefore, for the purpose of grouping to determine the defendant’s criminal history category, all prior convictions for the distribution/sale of marijuana which occurred in the last 10 years would not be counted toward his criminal history score. However, this court has clearly held that “[p]ossession of illegal drugs for personal use cannot be grouped with other offenses.” Wyss, 147 F.3d at 632. Cognizant of these limitations, the district court at sentencing held that Olson’s prior misdemeanor conviction in 1995 for possession of a controlled substance in Rock County Case No. 95 CF 304B could be used to increase Olson’s criminal history score by one point. Olson asserts that this was error, arguing that the prior conviction constitutes relevant conduct to the instant offense. No. 03-3756 11 The prior conviction at issue was handed down in state court in 1995. Though Olson was originally charged on February 27, 1995 with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, the charge was reduced to mere possession of marijuana on April 11, 1995, and it was on that charge that Olson was convicted. The record of this conviction reveals that Olson was arrested when police found a bag of marijuana wedged between the seat cushions of a car’s back seat, immediately next to where Olson had been sitting alone. The two other occupants of the car stated that the marijuana belonged to Olson, that they had seen it in his possession, and that they had smoked some of it with him. The total weight of the bag was just over two ounces, but within it the marijuana was divided into six smaller baggies of varying smaller weights. Though we know that the district court held that this prior conviction did not constitute relevant conduct, we do not know exactly why. The sentencing transcript, which the government concedes is unclear on this point, suggests that the district court may have reached this conclusion by focusing simply on the name of the prior offense—possession of a controlled substance. Indeed, a focus confined to the conviction’s moniker, which alone suggests possession for personal use devoid of an intent to distribute, could explain why the lower court concluded that that prior conviction did not constitute relevant conduct to the instant offense (possession with intent to distribute). This, however, cannot be the basis of the district court’s determination, for, as the government also concedes, the sentencing guidelines direct courts to look to the underlying conduct of the offense, and not the name of the offense itself, when assessing relevant conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Garecht, 183 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 1999) (looking to underlying conduct of offense, rather than formal label of offense, in finding that a defendant’s prior conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute was relevant conduct to the instant offense of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and therefore 12 No. 03-3756 not an amenable basis for enhancing defendant’s criminal history category); Wyss, 147 F.3d at 632 (finding that cocaine purchased for resale is relevant conduct to conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute). Thus, if the district court’s conclusion did rely solely on the formal label of the conviction, remand would be necessary on that basis alone. It is also possible—though we cannot know for sure due to the ambiguous nature of the sentencing transcript—that the district court did look to the underlying conduct giving rise to Olson’s 1995 conviction when assessing his relevant conduct. When looking to the underlying conduct, however, it is not readily apparent how that conduct should be categorized. On the one hand, Olson possessed a small amount of marijuana (two ounces), suggesting that Olson held the drugs for his own personal use. If so, then the underlying conduct would be considered mere possession of a controlled substance, and would therefore not constitute relevant conduct to the instant offense of possession with intent to distribute. On the other hand, the subdivision of those two ounces of marijuana in six smaller baggies might suggest that Olson did intend to distribute the drugs, in which case the prior conviction would have been for relevant conduct, and therefore an improper basis for increasing Olson’s criminal history score. The very uncertainty inherent in this underlying conduct accentuates the need for the district court to make specific factual findings regarding the underlying conduct giving rise to the prior conviction, thereby clearly providing the basis for its ultimate resolution of the relevant conduct question. Because no such factual findings were made here, we vacate Olson’s sentence and remand his case to the district court for further factual findings to flesh out whether he possessed the drugs at the center of his conviction in case number 95 CF 304B merely for his personal use, or with an intent to distribute. As both parties had the opportunity to present evidence on this issue at the sentencing hearing, resentencing shall be based on the No. 03-3756 13 existing record. See Wyss, 147 F.3d at 633 (“The government [is] entitled to only one opportunity to present evidence on the issue [of relevant conduct].”). Having remanded this matter for resentencing based on other grounds, we need not address the merits of Olson’s challenge under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We note, however, that when the district court imposes its new sentence upon remand, it must do so in accord with Booker, as Booker decidedly governs all sentences imposed after its date of decision. Indeed, after considering the cadre of factors and policy concerns memorialized by Justice Breyer’s remedial opinion (Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-66) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court may find that the sentence that it found appropriate yesterday to be wholly unwarranted today.