U.S. v WILLIAMS, 2009 W.L. 817498 (11th Cir. March 31, 2009)
The defendant appealed a life sentence for possession of crack cocaine, imposed at resentencing following a remand by the court of appeals. In Williams I, the court had remanded to the district court directing the court to give reasons why a life sentence on this 26 year old defendant was appropriate. In this appeal, the defendant argued that the district court interpreted the Court of Appeal’s mandate too narrowly and failed to consider 3553(a) factors in order to impose a lesser sentence. In other words the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory. The Court rejected the challenge finding that this was a limited remand restricting the district court from revisiting issues already affirmed. As the district court complied by giving reasons which included failure to take responsibility for his actions, his lengthy criminal history, the need to promote respect for the law, deterrence and the need to protect the public.
The exception to the restriction on a limited remand.
The only exception to a limited remand is for an intervening change in controlling law. The defendant argued that the Florida Supreme Court had held recently that BOLEO conviction is not a forcible felony for the purpose of sentencing enhancement under Florida’s violent career criminal statute and for that reason the district court erred in classifying him as a career offender. The court already rejected this argument in United States v. Johnson, 528 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, __ S. Ct.___, 2009 WL 425080 (Feb. 23, 2009), and although it is pending review in the U.S. Supreme court it is still controlling law.
Tags: career offender, Resentencing, Section 3553(a) factors, sentence enhancement, Sentencing Guidelines, violent career criminal
