Beckles v. United States (15-8544)

argument 15-8544

Beckles v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue presented in Beckles v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:00

You will hear argument this morning in case fifteen eighty five four four four four four four four four four four four Beckles versus United States. Ms. Bergman?

Amy Bergman 0:07

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. On average, attaching the career offender label to a federal defendant both doubles his sentence and increases it by seven years. At the time petitioner was sentenced, a defendant could qualify as a career offender if one or more of his predicate offenses fell within the residual clause of the career offender guideline. And yet all now agree that the residual clause is so unintelligible that it is impossible to discern its meaning. Petitioner here submits three things. First, that invoking a shapeless prov so shapeless a provision to enhance someone's sentence in such a significant way does not comport with due process. Second, a ruling that the career offender residual clause is void for vagueness is substantive and therefore has retroactive effect in petitioner's case.

Amy Bergman 1:01

And third, that voiding the residual clause also invalidates the guidelines commentary that identified petitioner's offence as a crime of violence, as such, petitioner is entitled to a resentencing without the career offender enhancement.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:16

You would agree would you not that If the commentary counts, if it counts. Then there's nothing imprecise about possessing a sort of shotgun, right?

Amy Bergman 1:29

Um yes, Your Honor, I agree that there is nothing imprecise about possession of a sought-off shotgun. Where the constitutional concerns come into play with the commentary is actually at the point where the Commission was interpreting the residual clause in order to identify the sh the sh possession of a shotgun offense as falling within the residual clause. And the reason why that viol violates due process is in part is because the Commission was attempting to clarify a provision that can't be clarified. I mean the the Court has held in Johnson that the residual clause

Unknown 2:05

there were a statute, and this is a I don't mean to interrupt, but this is part of Justice Ginsberg's question. Uh suppose there were a statute um in Johnson and read just like the residual clause read, it said an example of a dangerous offense is uh or a offense which creates a serious risk, uh is the possession of a sawed off shotgun. That was in the statute. In a shotgun case.

Amy Bergman 2:35

If the statute itself included that language, yes, Your Honor. But the the commentary

Unknown 2:40

would be valid.

Amy Bergman 2:42

If the mo if the possession of a saw sh sawed off shotgun was listed in the statute itself.

Unknown 2:47

Why can't why can't they uh C the Sensing Commission, the agency do that.

Amy Bergman 2:53

Well, Your Honor, because when the sentencing commission was interpreting When the sensing commission um created the commentary, it was interpreting the language of the residual clause. Do we know that for sure? Well, yes, Your Honor, we know it in several ways. One, the sought of shotgun offense um can only fall within the residual clause because the text of the guidelines states Three exclusive definitions for the term crime of violence. Um possession of a saw-off shotgun does not fall within the first definition because there's no element of force. It is not one of the four enumerated offenses. Um, because the guideline states forth these three exclusive definitions, the only definition it could fall within would be the residual clause.

Amy Bergman 3:33

We also know it because when the commission amended the commentary uh to include the possession of the saw-off shotgun offense. The reasons for amendment stated that it was doing so based on lower court decisions concluding that possession of a sodov shotgun fell within the residual clause.

Samuel A. Alito 3:52

guidelines themselves said that the term crime of violence means, among other things. Burglary of a dwelling, arson, extortion, involves use of explosives. involves possession of a sawdust shotgun or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Would there be a vagueness problem then?

Amy Bergman 4:16

Um no, Your Honor, but that would be because the uh the offense would be in the text of the guideline itself.