UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TERRY LYNN STINSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1994-08-31
No. 90-3711
Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, JOHNSON and DYER, Senior Circuit Judges.
30 F.3d 121 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1994) Negative Treatment
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: This case comes to us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. The issue is whether Amendment 433 — which excluded the felon-in-possession offense from the cate-: gory of crime of violence for U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(1) — to the United States Sentencing Guidelines applies retroactively to defendant’s sentence.

We hold that it does. The details of defendant’s case are discussed in earlier opinions. See United States v. Stinson, 943 F. 2d 1268 (11th Cir.1991) (Stinson I), reh’g denied, 957 F. 2d 813 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (Stinson II), vacated, Stinson v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (Stinson III).

Important to this appeal are just a few facts: Stinson was sentenced in July 1990; Stinson’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), was used as the predicate “crime of violence” necessary for establishing career offender status; following Stinson I (defendant’s sentence was affirmed), the Sentencing Commission amended commentary to section 4B1.2, stating that “[t]he term ‘crime of violence’ does not include the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, cmt. (n. 2) (Nov. 1, 1991) (“Amendment 433”); in September 1992, the Sentencing Commission decided to include Amendment 433 among the Guidelines Amendments which may be applied retroactively, U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 469 (effective Nov. 1, 1992).

We follow the courts, including the Second and Fifth Circuits, which have applied Amendment 433 retroactively. See United States v. Carter, 981 F. 2d 645 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, Carter v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1827, 123 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993); United States v. Fitzhugh, 954 F. 2d 253 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, Fitzhugh v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 259, 126 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993).

Under our case law, reviewing courts may consider amendments, enacted after sentencing, that “clarify.” United States v. Scroggins, 880 F. 2d 1204, 1215 (11th Cir.1989), United States v. Howard, 923 F. 2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Sahakian, 965 F. 2d 740 (9th Cir.1992) (concluding that Amendment 433 clarifies).

Amendment 433 purports to “clarif[y] that the offense of unlawful possession of a weapon is not a crime of violence.” Although we have doubts that this amendment just clarifies the pertinent guidelines (as opposed to making a substantive change in the law), we cannot conclude that the Commission’s viewing of the amendment as a clarification is plainly wrong; so, we accept that the amendment is a clarification.

Therefore, we will apply Amendment 433 retroactively. Defendant’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing. VACATED and REMANDED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996)
    …ary is authoritative and binding. Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (Stinson III). On remand, we held that the-guidelines amendment applied retroactively to Stinson’s sentence. United States v. Stinson, 30 F. 3d 121 (11th Cir.1994) {Stin-son IV). Consequently, we vacated Stinson’s sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing. Id. Stinson was resentenced in March 1995. The district court granted the Government’s motion to depart upward three…
  • United States v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2011)
    …regardless of the date of sentencing.” Id.; see also United States v. Armstrong, 347 F. 3d 905, 908 (11th Cir.2003) (explaining that clarifying amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines are “to be given retroactive effect”); United States v. Stinson, 30 F. 3d 121, 122 (11th Cir.1994) (concluding that Amendment 433 was clarifying and must therefore be applied retroactively on appeal). This is because clarifying amendments do not represent a substantive change in the Guidelines, but instead “provide persuasi…
  • United States v. Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997)
    …elds, 87 F. 3d 1194, 1196 n. 2 (11th Cir.1996) (en banc). However, subsequent amendments that clarify a guideline, rather than make substantive changes, should be considered on appeal regardless of the date of sentencing. United States v. Stinson, 30 F. 3d 121, 122 (11th Cir.1994). Because Fuentes was sentenced on August 29, 1994, we apply the guidelines from the 1993 manual. We note that the relevant subsection, § 5G1.3(b), has not been amended since 1993. While § 5G1.3(c) has been amended, that subse…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw