United States v. Trammel

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005 · Evidence

EvidenceSentencing GuidelinesPlain ErrorBooker resentencingCriminal history calculationBookerplain errormandatory Guidelines

Facts

Trammel pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In calculating criminal history, the district court added one point under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c) for a 1999 Kentucky contempt citation and two more points under § 4A1.1(d) because part of a $100 contempt fine was conditionally discharged for two years, leaving Trammel under that sentence when the conspiracy began. That calculation placed him in criminal history category III and produced a Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. The district court imposed 57 months, the bottom of the range, and remarked that Trammel’s child needed his parent’s attention as quickly as possible.

Issue

Whether the district court properly added criminal-history points based on Trammel’s Kentucky contempt disposition and conditional discharge, and whether Trammel was entitled to resentencing because he had been sentenced under the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines regime.

Rule

An unpreserved Booker claim is reviewed for plain error. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, sentencing a defendant under the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines satisfies the first two plain-error prongs, and prejudice is presumed where the district court might have imposed a lower sentence under an advisory regime unless the record clearly and specifically rebuts that possibility. For criminal-history purposes, a Kentucky term of conditional discharge, even when tied to a fine rather than a suspended jail sentence, is treated as a term of probation and therefore as a criminal justice sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Cincinnati, Devon Pike was sentenced in 2004 under a Guidelines system the judge treated as binding. Devon did not object at sentencing, and on appeal he first argues that the sentence was imposed under a legal framework later deemed advisory only.

What is the best standard of review for Devon's claim?

Explanation. An unpreserved claim that a defendant was sentenced under the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines is reviewed for plain error. The majority applied ordinary plain-error principles when the defendant raised the issue for the first time on appeal. (Derived from United States v. Trammel (n.d.).)