Court Opinion

ID: 9484246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:45:36.105289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:06.995760
License: Public Domain

RYAN, Circuit Judge, concurring.
While I agree that the sentence imposed by the district court should be affirmed, I reach this conclusion for reasons other than those stated in the majority opinion.
The majority appears to tacitly accept Hunter’s suggested application of section 5G1.3 as a correct analysis of one possible route under the guidelines, despite concluding that it is not a route that the district court must necessarily follow. I, however, believe that the analysis he suggests, although exhibiting a partially correct understanding of the guidelines provisions, is erroneous. Moreover, the majority opinion essentially reasons that the guidelines invest the district court with discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence, and that because the sentence imposed fell within the applicable guideline range of 168-210 months, therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion. This analysis, I believe, offers insufficient explication of the requirements of the guidelines.
Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. section 5G1.3(c), in purporting to explain the discretion apparently conveyed to the district court by the text of the guideline, effectively and substantially limits this discretion by directing that the court fashion a sentence that attempts to “approximate[ ] the total punishment that would have been imposed under section 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction) had all of the offenses been federal offenses for which sentences were being imposed at the same time.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment, (n. 4). By this language, the sentencing court is directed to undertake an odyssey through a labyrinth of guidelines provisions. After beginning at section 5G1.2, the court proceeds to Part D of Chapter 3 to determine the grouping of the multiple counts. It goes from there to the specific section of the guidelines that sets out the applicable range for the federal analog to the state crime. To determine the applicable range, a court should inquire whether any of the enhancements or reductions to sentences prescribed in Chapter 2 — obstruction of jus*131tice, for example, or acceptance of responsibility- — appropriately apply, in this case, to the prior state crime. From Chapter 2, the court progresses to a calculation of the combined offense level under section 3D1.4. The final step for the court is to return to section 5G1.3, where it is directed to subtract the state sentence from the maximum total sentence dictated by the combined offense level, and thereby to ascertain the maximum sentence to be imposed for the federal crime. At least one other circuit has described the details of this arduous process with commendable fortitude. See, e.g., United States v. Gullickson, 981 F.2d 344 (8th Cir.1992).
The majority opinion states that the district court “considered” Application Note 4 to section 5G1.3, thereby implying that the district court undertook the complicated analysis I have described. It is clear, however, that the district court entirely failed to do so, apparently unaware that the guidelines directs it to make such an analysis.
To be sure, the district court would have found it difficult to adequately implement this analysis under the circumstances of this case. Because the prior conviction was in state court, the district court simply did not have the facts before it that would allow full application of the guidelines. For example, under section 2B3.1, the base offense level for robbery is 20. The record reveals that Hunter “used a dangerous weapon” in committing the crime, but it does not disclose whether the weapon was a firearm, or whether Hunter actually used the weapon to harm someone. Those facts would determine whether the offense level should be increased between 3 and 6 levels. The record also does not reveal whether Hunter’s behavior would have entitled him to any reductions in offense level, such as for acceptance of responsibility, or whether instead, the offense level should be enhanced for his role in the offense or for obstruction of justice, and so on. In short, it is completely unclear what the offense level for Hunter’s state crime should be.
Still another problem in this case is to determine the actual length of the state sentence, in order to be able to determine how long a sentence the federal court may permissibly impose. Hunter was sentenced to ten years in state prison for his aggravated robbery charge, but according to the district court, he is eligible for parole in three years. He may not, of course, actually be paroled in three years, and thus there is considerable uncertainty about what figure should be subtracted from the total punishment to determine the maximum range of the federal sentence.
The guidelines offer relief to a district court faced with the problems engendered by a prior state conviction, however. Application Note 4 to section 5G1.3 provides that the analytical odyssey otherwise required should only be undertaken “[t]o the extent practicable,” and explicitly cautions that “[i]t is not intended that the above methodology be applied in a manner that unduly complicates or prolongs the sentencing process.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 comment, (n. 4).
In Hunter’s case, it is readily apparent that this methodology is simply impracticable, and therein lies the court’s discretion. The guidelines do not give a district court the discretion to simply ignore this analysis, however. The majority opinion’s failure to directly address the competing constraints at work in this section of the guidelines — the complicated grouping analysis versus the apparent discretion — may mislead future courts into concluding that they have discretion to undertake this analysis, or not, at their whim.
Therefore, despite the district court’s failure to undertake this analysis, I nonetheless conclude that the sentence should be affirmed. To apply the required methodology here, given the paucity of information on the defendant’s prior state conviction, is entirely impracticable, as well as unduly complicating and prolonging of the sentencing process. It is only for this reason that the district court had the discretion to abandon the process dictated by Application Note 4, and instead, to fashion a reasonable “incremental punishment” under section 5G1.3 — not because the court has unfettered discretion under any circumstances to do so.
It is for these reasons that I conclude the sentence should be affirmed, and I therefore concur.