Background
Justin Schneider’s wife called police reporting that he was suicidal and wanted them to kill him. When officers attempted to stop his truck, Schneider fled into a field, exited armed with a revolver pointed at the ground, and refused to comply with commands to drop the weapon. He then fled again in his truck. As he turned onto a highway where Lieutenant Wayland Bad Hand’s police cruiser was parked, Schneider’s truck moved directly toward the vehicle before swerving away at the last moment. Officers pursued and arrested Schneider after he was shot.
Schneider was charged with forcibly resisting or impeding a federal officer while using a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(b) and with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Plea negotiations failed. At trial, the jury acquitted him of resisting with a deadly weapon but convicted him of the lesser included offense of simple assault on the officer and of felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court applied a 4-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), calculating it based on the finding that Schneider had resisted a federal officer with a dangerous weapon—the conduct for which he had been acquitted.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed both convictions. The court rejected Schneider’s sufficiency-of-evidence challenge to the simple assault conviction, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude from the dash-cam video that Schneider’s act of driving his truck directly toward Lieutenant Bad Hand’s cruiser was sufficient to inspire fear of bodily harm, even though he ultimately swerved away. The court also rejected his claim that excluding him from the first jury selection violated his right to be present, holding any error harmless.
However, the court identified plain error in the sentencing. On November 1, 2024, three days before Schneider’s sentencing on November 4, 2024, the Sentencing Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c) to provide that relevant conduct does not include conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in federal court. The district court was required to apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. By applying the 4-level enhancement based on acquitted conduct, the district court used the wrong version of the Guidelines and calculated an erroneous Guidelines range of 151–188 months. The correct range under the amended Guidelines would have been 110–137 months. Because there is a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a different total sentence (163 months) had it known the correct Guidelines range, the error affected Schneider’s substantial rights.
Key Takeaways
- Sentencing courts must apply the version of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, not the version in effect at the time of conviction or charged conduct.
- Under the amended Guidelines effective November 1, 2024, acquitted conduct may not be considered when calculating the advisory Guidelines range, though courts retain discretion to consider such conduct in sentencing within or outside the range.
- A district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement based on acquitted conduct constitutes plain error when the correct Guidelines version prohibits such consideration.
- Even where a sentence falls within an erroneous Guidelines range, reversal and resentencing are required if there is a reasonable probability the court would have imposed a different sentence under the correct range.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of the Sentencing Commission’s November 2024 amendment restricting consideration of acquitted conduct. The ruling prevents sentencing courts from punishing defendants for conduct a jury has acquitted them of, at least in calculating the advisory Guidelines range. The decision affects all federal sentencing that occurs after the Guidelines amendment and demonstrates how retroactive amendments are applied.
The case also reflects an ongoing tension in sentencing law. Judge Loken’s concurrence notes that the underlying question whether the Sentencing Commission had authority to overrule prior Supreme Court precedent permitting consideration of acquitted conduct remains undecided in broader terms. The concurrence clarifies that while acquitted conduct is now excluded from Guidelines calculations, courts may still consider such conduct when exercising discretion to sentence within, above, or below the calculated range under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).