Description:
Cleveland, Ohio criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Without the reduction, Cason's advisory Guidelines range became 100 to 125 months. The
court varied downward based on Cason's difficult childhood and mental health challenges,
imposing concurrent 96-month sentences on both counts of conviction. Because the 96-month
sentence was driven by the Guidelines, no one recognized that, while the felon-in-possession count
had a 120-month maximum, the obliterated serial number count had a statutory maximum of just
60 months. 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(1)(B), (a)(2) (2021)
When Cleveland police officers stopped Cason's car for speeding, they saw three young
children in the back seat and a three-quarters empty bottle of Olde English 800 in the center
console. The officers searched the car and found a loaded handgun with an obliterated serial
number under the driver's seat. Cason told the officers that neither the gun nor the car was his.
That evening, Cason called his sister from jail. He told her the car was his and asked her
to retrieve it from the impound lot. In a second call, he lamented that if his kids had not been in
the car, "I definitely wouldn't have got caught with that thang.†R.20 at 5. During Cason's transfer
to federal custody, agents found a handwritten letter in which he wrote that "[a]s far as the gun,
yes, it was found in my car/vehicle. . . . I will always take responsibility for my actions.†R.37 at
9–10.
Cason pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
and to possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, id. § 922(k). In an interview with a
probation officer, Cason stated that he "was in possession of the firearm†and "knew it was wrong
and illegal.†R.20 at 5. The pre-sentence investigation report recommended a Guidelines
reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The report also mistakenly said that the maximum
sentence on the obliterated serial number count was 120 months, not 60 months.
During a virtual hearing, Cason requested an in-person sentencing. The court scheduled
the live hearing and cautioned that no sentencing decisions would be made until then. Cason
nevertheless went on to explain at length that "the situation is not what it looks like,†"I did not do
anything,†"I did not place that firearm [in the car],†and "it was not my gun.†R.36 at 7–10.
At the in-person sentencing, the government said that, despite Cason's previous statement
at the virtual hearing, it was still willing to seek a reduction if Cason accepted responsibility. But
Cason continued to insist that he "was not aware that the firearm was in the car,†and that he "didn't
have knowledge of the gun.†R.37 at 10, 16. After he doubled down, the government withdrew
its request for a reduction. The court concluded that a reduction was not appropriate due to Cason's
"clearly false†denial that he did not knowingly possess the gun. Id. at 19–20.
Without the reduction, Cason's advisory Guidelines range became 100 to 125 months. The
court varied downward based on Cason's difficult childhood and mental health challenges,
imposing concurrent 96-month sentences on both counts of conviction. Because the 96-month
sentence was driven by the Guidelines, no one recognized that, while the felon-in-possession count
had a 120-month maximum, the obliterated serial number count had a statutory maximum of just
60 months. 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(1)(B), (a)(2) (2021).
Cason appeals the court's refusal to grant him an acceptance of responsibility reduction
and the imposition of an above-maximum sentence on the obliterated serial number count.
Acceptance of responsibility. Defendants who "clearly demonstrate[] acceptance of
responsibility†are entitled to an offense level reduction. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Pleading guilty
does not alone establish entitlement to a sentence reduction, and a "defendant who falsely
denies . . . relevant conduct . . . has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility.†Id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(A), n.3. Although our cases have not always shown
consistency in the standard of review that we apply to this Guideline, see United States v. Thomas,
933 F.3d 605, 611–12 (6th Cir. 2019), the acceptance-of-responsibility issue in this case turns on
the factual question whether Cason lied when he said that he did not know the gun was in the car.
There is no doubt that we review the district court's resolution of that type of factual question for
clear error. United States v. Hollis, 823 F.3d 1045, 1047 (6th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
The district court's finding that Cason lied when he denied knowing about the gun was not
clearly erroneous. In recorded calls the night of his arrest, Cason admitted that he possessed the
gun. In a handwritten letter, he took responsibility and admitted that he knew possessing the gun
was wrong. During his plea hearing, the court explained that he was pleading guilty to "knowingly
possess[ing] this firearm,†and Cason admitted that he possessed "the gun as described.†R.34 at
15, 18–19 (emphasis added). After his guilty plea, Cason admitted to a probation officer that he
knew his possession of the gun was illegal. In the face of this evidence, Cason's decision to deny
knowledge of the gun at sentencing justified the court's rejection of an acceptance of responsibility
reduction. No clear error occurred.
Limited remand. Cason received concurrent 96-month sentences for the two offenses, one
valid and the other invalid. His first 96-month sentence is within the felon-in-possession offense's
120-month maximum. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2021). In contrast, his concurrent 96-month
sentence on the obliterated serial number count must be reversed because it exceeds that offense's
lower 60-month maximum. Id. § 924(a)(1)(B) (2021). The parties agree that a remand is necessary
but disagree on its scope.
A full resentencing is appropriate when the district court must recalculate the defendant's
sentence on remand. United States v. Grant, 15 F.4th 452, 459 (6th Cir. 2021). A limited remand
is appropriate when a district court need only correct a sentence through "arithmetical, technical,
or mechanical†actions, such as cutting back a sentence that exceeds a statutory maximum. United
States v. Flack, 941 F.3d 238, 241 (6th Cir. 2019).
Paring back the above-maximum sentence on the obliterated serial number count is all that
is required. Cason's sentence on the felon-in-possession count was driven by a validly calculated
Guidelines range, without consideration of the statutory maximums, and was therefore unaffected
by the error. Cason received a base offense level of 20 for being a felon-in-possession with a prior
felony conviction for "a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.†R.20 at 6 (quoting
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A)). And he received a four-level enhancement because his gun had an
obliterated serial number. Id. (citing U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)). Cason's offense level of 24
produced a Guidelines range of 100 to 125 months and, after a downward variance, a 96-month
sentence. Rather than imposing this sentence concurrently on both counts, the court should have
imposed the 96-month sentence on the felon-in-possession count and a concurrent statutory
maximum sentence of 60 months on the obliterated serial number count. See U.S.S.G. §§ 5G1.1,
5G1.2. Because the mistake on the obliterated serial number count had no impact on Cason's 96-
month sentence on the felon-in-possession count, a "complete reconsideration on resentencing†is
"unnecessary and unwarranted.†Grant, 15 F.4th at 459 (quotations omitted).