United States v. Nathaniel Pembrook, No. 16-1650 (6th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 15, 2017.
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0437n.06 CASE Nos. 16-1650/1706/1707/1708 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL PEMBROOK, SHAEED CALHOUN, DAVID BRILEY, and ORLANDO JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED Aug 20, 2019 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Upon convictions for robbery, conspiracy, and firearms charges, the district court imposed lengthy prison sentences on four co-defendants. On appeal, we affirmed. United States v. Pembrook, 876 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2017). In that appeal the defendants argued that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague, so the § 924(c) minimum sentences did not apply and resentencing was warranted. We rejected that argument based on then-binding Sixth Circuit precedent, but acknowledged that if the defendants were correct, that would warrant resentencing. Id. at 830-31. The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and the Court remanded for reconsideration of this issue. See, e.g., Pembrook v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 68 (2018). In the meantime, the Court has now held that that § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Davis, No. 18-431, 588 U.S. - -, 2019 WL 2570623, at *13 (June 24, 2019). Consequently, we remand these cases to the district court for resentencing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
