Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the defendant's prior New York state drug convictions were not relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 for his federal heroin distribution sentence, as they lacked a common scheme or plan and were not part of the same course of conduct. However, the court remanded for resentencing because the district court procedurally erred by imposing a six-year term of supervised release without ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss the § 851 information regarding a prior felony drug offense, and by improperly designating the sentence commencement date instead of leaving that to the Bureau of Prisons under 18 U.S.C. § 3585.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in determining that two of April's New York State drug-related convictions were not relevant conduct to his federal offense.
- Whether the district court erred in designating the commencement of April's sentence as the date of his initial appearance in federal court.
- Whether the district court erred in sentencing April to a six-year term of supervised release without determining whether his prior conviction qualified as a 'felony drug offense' resulting in an enhanced sentence.
Holdings
- The district court did not clearly err in determining that the state convictions were not relevant conduct because April failed to demonstrate a common scheme or plan or same course of conduct.
- The district court erred in designating the commencement of April's sentence because that determination is the responsibility of the Bureau of Prisons under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a).
- The district court's lack of reasoning for the above-Guidelines sentence of six years of supervised release merits remand, and the district court must address the § 851 motion if it remains.
Key quotations
“Relevant conduct includes 'all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant . . . that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.'” (2)
“For two or more offenses to constitute part of a common scheme or plan, they must be substantially connected to each other by at least one common factor, such as common victims, common accomplices, common purpose, or similar modus operandi.” (3)
“Offenses that do not qualify as part of a common scheme or plan may nonetheless qualify as part of the same course of conduct if they are sufficiently connected or related to each other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing series of offenses.” (5)
“A sentence commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served.” (9)
“UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED in part.” (1)
Factual background
April sold approximately 25 grams of heroin to a confidential informant in Schenectady, New York on November 17, 2017. He had prior state drug convictions from arrests in July 2018 and September 2018, to which he pled guilty. The district court determined that these state convictions were not relevant conduct to the federal offense.
Procedural history
April pled guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced him to 41 months' imprisonment and a six-year term of supervised release. April appeals, challenging the district court's determination that his prior state drug convictions were not relevant conduct, the designation of his sentence commencement date, and the imposition of a six-year supervised release term without addressing the § 851 information.
Remand instructions
The district court is directed to vacate April's sentence and resentence him. Upon resentencing as to a term of supervised release, the district court must make a merits determination on April's motion to dismiss the § 851 information if it remains in place. In the event the information is withdrawn or dismissed and the court imposes an above-Guidelines term of supervised release, it must explain its reasons for doing so. The district court should also reconsider its imposed sentence regarding the commencement date.