SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CHARLES EARL DAVIS
v. UNITED STATES
on petition for writ of certiorari to the
united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit
No. 19–5421. Decided March 23, 2020
Per Curiam.
In July 2016, police officers in Dallas, Texas,
received a tip about a suspicious car parked outside of a house in
the Dallas area. The officers approached the car and encountered
Charles Davis in the driver’s seat. They ordered him out of the car
after smelling marijuana. As Davis exited the car, the officers
spotted a black semiautomatic handgun in the door compartment. They
then searched Davis and found methamphetamine pills.
Davis had previously been convicted of two state
felonies. In this case, a federal grand jury in the Northern
District of Texas indicted Davis for being a felon in possession of
a firearm, 18 U. S. C. §§922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and for
possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them, 21
U. S. C. §§841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Davis pleaded guilty to
both counts. The presentence report prepared by the probation
office noted that Davis was also facing pending drug and gun
charges in Texas courts stemming from a separate 2015 state arrest.
The District Court sentenced Davis to four years and nine months in
prison and ordered that his sentence run consecutively to any
sentences that the state courts might impose for his 2015 state
offenses. Davis did not object to the sentence or to its
consecutive nature.
Davis appealed to the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On appeal, he argued for the first
time that the District Court erred by ordering his federal sentence
to run consecutively to any sentence that the state courts might
impose for his 2015 state offenses. Davis contended that his 2015
state offenses and his 2016 federal offenses were part of the “same
course of conduct,” meaning under the Sentencing Guidelines that
the sentences should have run concurrently, not consecutively. See
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual
§§1B1.3(a)(2), 5G1.3(c) (Nov. 2018).
In the Fifth Circuit, Davis acknowledged that he
had failed to raise that argument in the District Court. When a
criminal defendant fails to raise an argument in the district
court, an appellate court ordinarily may review the issue only for
plain error. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b).
But the Fifth Circuit refused to entertain
Davis’ argument at all. The Fifth Circuit did not employ
plain-error review because the court characterized Davis’ argument
as raising factual issues, and under Fifth Circuit precedent,
“[q]uestions of fact capable of resolution by the district court
upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain
error.” 769 Fed. Appx. 129 (2019) (
per curiam)
(quoting
United States v.
Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50
(1991) (
per curiam)). By contrast, almost every
other Court of Appeals conducts plain-error review of unpreserved
arguments, including unpreserved factual arguments. See,
e.g.,
United States v.
González-Castillo, 562 F.3d 80, 83–84
(CA1 2009);
United States v.
Romeo, 385 Fed. Appx.
45, 49–50 (CA2 2010);
United States v.
Griffiths, 504
Fed. Appx. 122, 126–127 (CA3 2012);
United States v.
Wells,
163 F.3d 889, 900 (CA4 1998);
United States v.
Sargent, 19 Fed. Appx. 268, 272 (CA6 2001)
(
per curiam);
United States v.
Durham, 645 F.3d 883, 899–900 (CA7 2011);
United
States v.
Sahakian, 446 Fed. Appx. 861, 863 (CA9 2011);
United States v.
Thomas, 518 Fed. Appx. 610, 612–613
(CA11 2013) (
per curiam);
United States v.
Saro,
24 F.3d 283, 291 (CADC 1994).
In this Court, Davis challenges the Fifth
Circuit’s outlier practice of refusing to review certain
unpreserved factual arguments for plain error. We agree with Davis,
and we vacate the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.
Rule 52(b) states in full: “A plain error that
affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not
brought to the court’s attention.” The text of Rule 52(b) does not
immunize factual errors from plain-error review. Our cases likewise
do not purport to shield any category of errors from plain-error
review. See generally
Rosales- Mireles v.
United
States, 585 U. S. ___ (2018);
United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S.
725 (1993). Put simply, there is no legal basis for the Fifth
Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved
factual arguments for plain error.
The petition for certiorari and the motion for
leave to proceed
in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment
of the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no
opinion on whether Davis has satisfied the plain-error
standard.
It is so ordered.
