Background
Wardell Fletcher pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Louisiana to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. The district court sentenced him to 180 months in prison.
On appeal, Fletcher argued that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court made three errors when assessing criminal-history points. One claim concerned whether he had actually served prison time on two prior sentences; his other claims also challenged the criminal-history calculation.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Applying plain-error review to Fletcher’s claim that he had not served prison time on two prior sentences, the court held that he failed to show a clear or obvious error.
The court did not reach the merits of Fletcher’s remaining claims because any alleged error was harmless. Those alleged errors did not change the applicable Guidelines range, and the record showed that the district court based its upward variance independently on Fletcher’s criminal history and dangerousness under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant raising an unpreserved sentencing claim must establish a clear or obvious error under plain-error review.
- An alleged criminal-history scoring error may be harmless when it does not affect the Guidelines range.
- An independently justified upward variance under the § 3553(a) factors can support affirmance despite alleged Guidelines-calculation errors.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of obtaining resentencing when disputed criminal-history points do not alter the Guidelines range and the sentencing court separately explains its variance through the statutory sentencing factors.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of preserving objections and developing a record showing that a claimed Guidelines error actually influenced the sentence imposed.