United States v. Hamilton, No. 18-2436 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Following a guilty plea to possession of heroin with intent to distribute, the court sentenced Hamilton to 81 months imprisonment. Hamilton’s PSR criminal history score, used to calculate his Guidelines range, included a previous Illinois felony conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. The Eighth Circuit vacated Hamilton’s sentence because part of the Illinois statute of conviction had been declared unconstitutional. At resentencing, the district court stated that the scope of resentencing was limited to Hamilton’s previous Illinois conviction and concluded that this conviction was properly part of Hamilton’s criminal history score because Hamilton was convicted under a statutory provision that remained in effect. The court reimposed the 81-month sentence.
The Eighth Circuit vacated. The court rejected Hamilton’s argument that, in determining his criminal history score, the court relied on documents that did not satisfy precedent to determine that Hamilton had a valid conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. The court examined an Order Assessing Fines, Fees and Costs, and the official charging document, which conclusively demonstrated that Hamilton was not convicted under the invalidated subsection. The district court was not limited on remand to consideration of only the Illinois conviction. Failure to understand the scope of authority and discretion at sentencing is a significant procedural error. The district court was not prohibited from considering Hamilton’s attempt to challenge the PSR’s statement of relevant conduct and the government’s original request for an upward departure or variance.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion in the case, see U.S. v. Hamilton, 709 F. App'x 425 (8th Cir. 2018); defendant's claim that in determining his criminal history score the district court relied on documents that did not satisfy Shepard v. U.S., 544 U.S. 12 (2005), to determine that he had a valid conviction for aggravated unlawful use of weapon rejected; on remand the district court erred in determining the scope of the remand and erred in concluding that it was prohibited from considering other issues on remand in addition to the inclusion of an Illinois conviction in defendant's criminal history; remanded for further proceedings. Judge Loken, dissenting in part.
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.