whether-the-circuits-may-forego-appellate-review-of-significant-procedural-error-under-gall

QUESTION PRESENTED The United States Courts of Appeal disagree as to a district court’s power to preclude appellate review for significant procedural error required by Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), such as miscalculation of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by imposing a sentence “regardless” of any Guidelines error. Here, the Government explicitly exhorted the judge impose “regardless” of any error in its Guidelines calculation. The District Court agreed this Court’s ruling in Borden v. United States, 141 8. Ct. 1817 (2021) cast doubt on Eighth | Circuit precedent declaring Petitioner’s teenage conviction for resisting arrest a “crime of violence” which increased the advisory guideline range from 84-105 months to 100-125 months | because the crime occurs if an arrestee holds stubbornly still or recklessly injures an officer. Yet, at the Government’s request, the district court imposed concurrent 120-month sentences “regardless” of any guidelines error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence without determining if the Guidelines range and affirmed the sentence because the district court said any guidelines error “would not matter.” Mr. Houston seeks certiorari because a deeply entrenched split exists amongst the Circuits and the Eighth Circuit’s rule of foregoing review for significant procedural error such as Guidelines miscalculations conflicts with Gall and the purpose for which this Court established reasonableness review to serve Congress’s creation of the Guidelines to limit unwarranted sentence disparities in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The case raises two issues: 1. Whether the Circuits may forego appellate review of significant procedural error under Gall because a judge imposes a sentence “regardless” of the Guidelines. 2. Whether resisting arrest by holding still or reckless injury is “the use of force.” 2