Ricky House pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after threatening gas station employees with a weapon during a dispute over a refund. The presentence report calculated his base offense level at 26 because his semiautomatic firearm was deemed capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine, and he had two prior felony convictions. This calculation, combined with adjustments for discharging the firearm and acceptance of responsibility, resulted in a Guidelines range of 120 months, capped by the statutory maximum. Although House requested a downward variance at sentencing, arguing that his weapon barely qualified for the enhancement and that the enhancement was outdated policy, he did not object to the calculation itself. Instead, he and his counsel acknowledged the enhancement applied, even if only at the bottom of the spectrum. The district court sentenced House to 96 months, a term below the Guidelines range, before House appealed on the grounds that the enhancement was misapplied and the court failed to address his policy objections.
The Sixth Circuit addressed two distinct arguments raised by House. First, regarding the calculation of the base offense level, the court applied the invited error doctrine. The opinion explains that the enhancement applies to magazines capable of accepting more than 15 rounds. House had argued in his sentencing memorandum that he 'barely qualifie[d]' for the enhancement and that his counsel described the weapon as being at the 'bottom of the spectrum' for the enhancement. By telling the district court that the calculation was correct, albeit marginal, House invited the court to adopt that conclusion. The court held that to review such an error, there must be manifest injustice. The court found none, noting that even if the enhancement were removed, the resulting Guidelines range would still be higher than the 96 months actually imposed. Second, regarding the policy argument, the court reviewed for plain error since House failed to object at the end of the hearing. While the district court did not explicitly cite House's policy arguments, the opinion notes the court stated it understood the arguments for why the base level was high and that the guideline range was 'kind of high for the reasons' suggested by defense. The court concluded that the district court's decision to sentence House two years below the Guidelines range demonstrated it had considered and weighed those policy arguments.
The conviction and 96-month sentence remain in effect. The decision reinforces that defendants cannot challenge sentencing calculations on appeal if they have previously agreed to those calculations in the district court, unless they can show manifest injustice. It also clarifies that a district court does not need to explicitly recite every policy argument in its reasoning if the resulting sentence reflects that the court considered the arguments, particularly when the sentence is below the Guidelines range.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download