Court Opinion

ID: 9840484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 19:00:44.822402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:35.669219
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10882    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 09/18/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10882
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MARQUES DEANGELO HOWARD,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00238-KKM-SPF-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10882      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 09/18/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10882

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Marques Howard, proceeding with counsel, appeals his
       207-month total sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act rob-
       bery, substantive Hobbs Act robbery, carrying and discharging a
       firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and possession of a fire-
       arm by a convicted felon. The government, in turn, has moved for
       summary reversal, agreeing with Howard’s claim that the district
       court erroneously calculated his advisory guideline range.
               Summary disposition is appropriate either when time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat-
       ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out-
       come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap-
       peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969).
              We review de novo the interpretation and application of the
       Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1272
       (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). But when a defendant fails to raise an
       argument before the district court, we review for only plain error.
       United States v. Johnson, 694 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 2012); Fed. R.
       Crim. P. 52(b). “Plain error occurs where (1) there is an error; (2)
       that is plain or obvious; (3) affecting the defendant’s substantial
       rights in that it was prejudicial and not harmless; and (4) that
USCA11 Case: 23-10882      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 09/18/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       23-10882               Opinion of the Court                          3

       seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the
       judicial proceedings.” Johnson, 694 F.3d at 1195 (quotation marks
       omitted).
              For an error to be obvious under plain-error review, “it must
       be plain under controlling precedent or in view of the unequivo-
       cally clear words of a statute or rule.” Id. (quotation marks omit-
       ted). An appellant may satisfy the second prong of the plain-error
       test by showing that the error is plain at the time of appellate con-
       sideration. Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 (2013).
       “When a defendant is sentenced under an incorrect Guidelines
       range—whether or not the defendant’s ultimate sentence falls
       within the correct range—the error itself can, and most often will,
       be sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different out-
       come absent the error.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S.
       189, 198 (2016). Likewise, “[t]he risk of unnecessary deprivation of
       liberty particularly undermines the fairness, integrity, or public rep-
       utation of judicial proceedings in the context of a plain Guidelines
       error because of the role the district court plays in calculating the
       range and the relative ease of correcting the error.” Rosales-Mireles
       v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1908 (2018).
              The sentencing table in Chapter Five of the Guidelines man-
       ual provides that a criminal-history category of III, combined with
       an offense level of 22, results in an advisory guideline range of 51
       to 63 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A.
             Here, we grant summary reversal as to Howard’s sentence
       because the district court plainly erred in finding Howard’s total
USCA11 Case: 23-10882     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 09/18/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-10882

       offense level. Howard had a base offense level of 20 and 5 levels of
       applicable enhancements. So Howard’s adjusted offense level to-
       taled 25, not 28. This error increased Howard’s advisory guideline
       range from 51 to 63 months to 70 to 87 months. That is an error
       that clearly affected Howard’s substantial rights and the fairness,
       integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.
             Because the parties’ position is clearly correct as a matter of
       law, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary reversal.
             REVERSED AND REMANDED.