Supreme Court Denies Relief in Latest Challenge to Federal Sentencing Guidelines

In Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), the Supreme Court declared the so-called “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which helped define predicate crimes of violence, void because it was so vague. This meant that the residual clause could not be used to determine crimes of violence for purposes of triggering the 15-year mandatory minimum ACCA sentence.

A year later, the Supreme Court determined that Johnson had announced a “substantive” rule and thus had retroactive effect.  Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. ____ (2016).

The residual clause of the career offender guideline was identical to the residual clause of the ACCA.   The Sentencing Commission acted quickly following Johnson to remove the residual clause from the career offender guideline but declined to make the change retroactive.

Beckles v. United States sought to apply the holding in Johnson to the Career Offender guidelines.  Mr. Beckles was convicted in 2007 of possessing a firearm by a convicted felon.  The firearm he possessed was a sawed-off shotgun and under the career offender residual clause and under guideline commentary, possession of a sawed off shotgun was deemed a crime of violence.   U.S.S.G. sec. 4B1.2(a)(2).  He was sentenced to 360 months after being deemed a career offender.

After he exhausted his appeals, Mr. Beckles asked the Supreme Court to rule that Johnson invalidated the residual clause of the career offender guideline and that the ruling be given retroactive effect so that he could petition the court to vacate his career offender sentence.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 30, 2016.  The Court issued its decision on March 6, 2017.  It held that the residual clause was not invalid based on the so-called “void for vagueness”constitutional doctrine.  The judgment was unanimous (though Justice Elena Kagan did not participate and two justices ruled against Mr. Beckles on different grounds).

The decision was based on the Court’s analysis under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  That clause forbids the government from taking someone’s life, liberty or property based on a criminal law that is so vague that ordinary people do not have “fair notice” of the conduct being punished.  Courts have applied the void for vagueness test to laws that define crimes as well as laws that fix punishment – such as the ACCA.  The ACCA fixed a mandatory minimum term of 15 years and a maximum of life.

Unlike the ACCA, the guidelines that were used in Mr. Beckles’s case do not “fix” the punishment. Rather, because they are advisory, they merely guide the judge in setting the punishment within the statutory range.  The career offender range in Mr. Beckles’s case was 360 months to  life, within the otherwise applicable statutory range for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g).

Because the guidelines do not fix the punishment, and because judges may sentence anywhere within the statutory framework, including below the career offender floor of 360 months, the Court said they are not evaluated under the void for vagueness doctrine.