By: Derek Hawkins//September 6, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Patrick S. McGuire
Case No.: 15-2071
Officials: ROVNER, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges
Focus: Residual Clause
Court erred included residual clause in the career-offender guideline
The district judge counted two of McGuire’s prior convictions as crimes of violence, one of which—a conviction for fleeing the police—qualified only under the residual clause. With the career-offender enhancement in the mix, McGuire’s Guidelines range increased from 63–78 months to 151–188 months. Citing McGuire’s extensive criminal history, the judge imposed a 188-month sentence. In doing so she noted her surprise that the government hadn’t asked for the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years. McGuire appeals, arguing that in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the residual clause in the career-offender guideline is unconstitutionally vague. The government agrees and confesses error. In a recent decision circulated to the full court under Circuit Rule 40(e), we also agreed and invalidated § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Hurlburt, No. 14-3611 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016) (en banc). Applying Hurlburt here, McGuire was wrongly classified as a career offender. As in most cases involving miscalculation of a defendant’s Guidelines range, that error warrants full resentencing.
Vacated and Remanded