Filed: Jul. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 30, 2019 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-3132 (D.C. No. 2:16-CR-20078-JAR-1) MATHEW B. CLARK, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before HARTZ, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges. _ Defendant Mathew B. Clark pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to five counts in an i
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 30, 2019 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-3132 (D.C. No. 2:16-CR-20078-JAR-1) MATHEW B. CLARK, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before HARTZ, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges. _ Defendant Mathew B. Clark pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to five counts in an in..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 30, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 18-3132
(D.C. No. 2:16-CR-20078-JAR-1)
MATHEW B. CLARK, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Defendant Mathew B. Clark pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas to five counts in an indictment against him: Count 1, possessing
five or more grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii); Count 2, maintaining a residence for the purpose of storing,
distributing, and using methamphetamine, see
id. § 856(a)(1), (2); Count 3, possessing
firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); Count 4, felon
in possession of a firearm, see
id. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2); and Count 5, unlawful user of
a controlled substance in possession of a firearm, see
id. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). The
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 210 months each on Counts 1, 2, 4,
and 5, and five years on Count 3, to run consecutively to the other sentences.
On appeal Defendant raises three arguments: (1) his within-guideline sentence
was substantively unreasonable because the sentencing guideline for methamphetamine
was unreasonable in the context of his case; (2) the district court’s findings on the
quantity and purity of the methamphetamine seized from his home violated the due-
process, notice, and jury provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; and (3) his
sentences on Counts 4 and 5 exceeded the statutory maximum. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
As the government concedes, Defendant’s third challenge has merit. Under 18
U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), the maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment for a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We therefore must vacate Defendant’s sentences and remand for
resentencing. Under the sentencing-package doctrine, “after we vacate a count of
conviction that is part of a multicount indictment, a district court possesses the inherent
discretionary power to resentence a defendant on the remaining counts de novo unless we
impose specific limits on the court’s authority to resentence.” United States v. Hicks,
146
F.3d 1198, 1202 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district
court will have the discretion to reconsider Defendant’s entire sentencing package, we
need not address the other issues Defendant raises here as they may be mooted on
remand. Our remand is without prejudice to Defendant’s post-briefing claim that he is
entitled to relief under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rehaif v. United States,
139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
2
We VACATE the district court’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing. We
DENY Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief and Motion to
Supplement Record.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
3