United States v. Tooley

No. 24-5286, 25a0292p.06 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · October 23, 2025 · No. 24-5286

Summary

The Sixth Circuit held that Kentucky second-degree manslaughter, which requires wanton conduct, is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines because its mens rea is functionally equivalent to recklessness under Borden v. United States. The court concluded that the district court plainly erred by using the conviction to calculate Tooley’s base offense level and that the error affected his substantial rights and the fairness of the proceedings. The court vacated Tooley’s 145-month sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Helene N. White; Jane Branstetter Stranch; Eric E. Murphy
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
October 23, 2025
Docket number
24-5286
Procedural posture
Tooley pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appealed his 145-month sentence, arguing that the district court improperly treated his prior Kentucky second-degree manslaughter conviction as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Standard of review
Because Tooley did not object to the Guidelines calculation below, the court reviewed for plain error. Plain error requires an error, that is clear or obvious under current law, that affects substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Precedential value
Published and recommended for publication
Parties
Davon S. Tooley v. United States of America
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

sentencingmens reastandard of reviewpreservation of errorstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawfederal sentencingappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Kentucky second-degree manslaughter, which requires that a person wantonly cause the death of another, is a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
  2. Whether the district court's use of the Kentucky second-degree manslaughter conviction to increase Tooley's Guidelines offense level constituted plain error despite Tooley's failure to object below.

Holdings

  1. Kentucky second-degree manslaughter is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines because its wantonness mens rea is functionally equivalent to recklessness, and reckless conduct does not satisfy the Guidelines' use-of-force clause.
  2. The district court's reliance on Tooley's Kentucky second-degree manslaughter conviction as a crime of violence was plain error.

Key quotations

Because wantonness under Kentucky law is functionally identical to recklessness as defined in Borden, a crime requiring a mens rea of wantonness under Kentucky law is not a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. (6)
We therefore conclude that the error here meets the final two requirements for plain error. (9)

Factual background

Tooley's car struck a truck in April 2022, after which he asked the truck driver not to call police because he had drugs and a firearm in the car. Tooley fled but was apprehended, and officers found the firearm and drugs in his car. During a later traffic stop, officers observed drug paraphernalia and searched the car, finding ammunition, drugs, additional paraphernalia, and another firearm with an extended magazine. Tooley pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.

Procedural history

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky calculated a base offense level of twenty-two based in part on Tooley's prior Kentucky second-degree manslaughter conviction and imposed a total sentence of 145 months. Tooley did not object to the Guidelines calculation in the district court. The Sixth Circuit reviewed for plain error, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Remand instructions

The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…