United States v. Parker, No. 13-1592 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his 100-month prison sentence for drug offenses for being too long and the Government appealed defendant's sentence for being too short. At issue was the ambiguity of the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a). The court concluded that the district court correctly applied the career offender enhancement; the "law of the case" doctrine was inapplicable in this case; the "rule of lenity" and policy considerations compelled the court to give defendant the benefit of his reading that the underlying sentence did not count separately from the non-qualifying offense by receiving any points under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c); and based on the analysis and all the facts, including defendant's entire criminal history, the district court did not err in imposing defendant's sentence. The court also concluded that the district court did not procedurally err in imposing an upward departure and variance and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and took into account defendant's underlying criminal history despite the ambiguity of the career offender provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Case - sentence. Noting the ambiguity in the career offender provision of Guidelines sec. 4B1.2(c) relating to the treatment as one sentence the qualifying and non-qualifying conviction imposed on the same day and applying the Rule of Lenity, this court agrees that the district court imposed the most appropriate sentence. The district court's imposition of an upward variance and departure was not procedurally erroneous. The district court did not err in fully accounting for Parker's understated criminal history. Having fully considered the section 3553(a) factors and having made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, the district court imposed a sentence that was not substantively unreasonable. Judge Benton concurs.
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.