Summary
In Pembrook, the Sixth Circuit recognized that "the [Supreme] Court has now held that § 924(c)(3)(B) [the residual clause] is unconstitutionally vague.
Summary of this case from United States v. SteeleOpinion
CASE No. 16-1650 CASE No. 16-1706 CASE No. 16-1707 CASE No. 16-1708
08-20-2019
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL PEMBROOK, SHAEED CALHOUN, DAVID BRILEY, and ORLANDO JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellants.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0437n.06 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Upon convictions for robbery, conspiracy, and firearms charges, the district court imposed lengthy prison sentences on four co-defendants. On appeal, we affirmed. United States v. Pembrook, 876 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2017).
In that appeal the defendants argued that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague, so the § 924(c) minimum sentences did not apply and resentencing was warranted. We rejected that argument based on then-binding Sixth Circuit precedent, but acknowledged that if the defendants were correct, that would warrant resentencing. Id. at 830-31.
The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and the Court remanded for reconsideration of this issue. See, e.g., Pembrook v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 68 (2018). In the meantime, the Court has now held that that § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Davis, No. 18-431, 588 U.S. - -, 2019 WL 2570623, at *13 (June 24, 2019).
Consequently, we remand these cases to the district court for resentencing.