4th Circuit: Drug defendant’s sentence vacated a second time

Where a defendant who pleaded guilty to federal drug charges argued the drug quantity in the presentence report, or PSR, was based on unreliable information from informants, that he should not receive a management/supervision sentencing enhancement, and that he should receive a downward variance based on his traumatic childhood, and the district court failed to address these arguments, it erred.

Background

Jacques Arielle King pleaded guilty to federal drug charges. After his first sentencing and appeal, this court vacated King’s sentence because the district court committed a procedural error in pronouncing the sentence. King was resentenced to 160 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He again appeals, arguing his resentencing was procedurally unreasonable.

Analysis

King argues the district court erred in determining the drug quantity based on unreliable information from informants, imposing a sentence enhancement for managing and supervising five participants in the criminal activity and failing to address his mitigating arguments or explain the 160-month sentence.

The government concedes that the district court did not rule on King’s renewed objections or adopt its previous factual findings at resentencing. Nonetheless, it argues this court should review King’s sentence for clear error, and further that any error was harmless because this court “already knows from the 2019 sentencing hearing how the district court would rule on the objections, and those rulings were supported by the PSR and [investigator] testimony.”

When this court remands due to an error under United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020) — as here — the district court must conduct a complete resentencing. But when it resentenced King, the district court did not rule on the renewed objections, indicate it was adopting the PSR or prior investigator testimony or explain its revised sentence. Without these findings, simply put, “there is nothing for us to review” in this case.

The court declines to rely upon the PSR and the investigator’s testimony the district court adopted at King’s initial sentencing. The district court neither adopted the PSR nor this prior testimony at the resentencing at issue here. King raised specific arguments challenging the quantity of drugs attributed to him and the veracity of evidence supporting other defendants’ proffers. King also asserted that interviews with informants showed that the managerial or supervisory role enhancement was not supported by the evidence. These are fact-intensive determinations that the district court must resolve on remand.

Vacated and remanded.

United States v. King, Case No. 22-4014, Dec. 31, 2024. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from EDNC at Raleigh (Boyle). Jennifer Claire Leisten for Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz for Appellee. 6 pp.