Court Opinion

ID: 9814402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:50:42.136847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:40:16.218620
License: Public Domain

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Our task in this appeal would have been greatly simplified, if not eliminated entirely, had Simpson merely told to the district court what he tells us now — namely, that the district court failed to consider his request for a variance. That is a good indication that plain-error review ought to apply here. And I think our caselaw, notably United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.2008) (en banc), bears out that indication. The majority declines to apply Vonner, suggesting there is sufficient confusion regarding the nature of Simpson’s claim (i.e., whether it is substantive or procedural) that we should apply the narrow exception to Vonner set forth in United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.2009). I do not agree that there can plausibly be any such confusion. Simpson’s claim is that the district court failed altogether to consider his claim for a variance. That claim is quintessentially procedural, which brings it within the heartland of Vonner, and which in turn makes the claim subject to plain-error review. I do agree with the majority that the district court erred by failing separately to consider Simpson’s request for a variance; but under the circumstances present here, I do not think the error was plain. I therefore respectfully dissent.