home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
- NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
- being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
- The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
- prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
- See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
-
- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
-
- Syllabus
-
- STINSON v. UNITED STATES
- certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
- the eleventh circuit
- No. 91-8685. Argued March 24, 1993-Decided May 3, 1993
-
- After petitioner Stinson pleaded guilty to a five-count indictment
- resulting from his robbery of a bank, the District Court sentenced
- him as a career offender under United States Sentencing
- Commission, Guidelines Manual 4B1.1, which requires, inter alia,
- that ``the instant offense of conviction [be] a crime of violence.'' The
- court found that Stinson's offense of possession of a firearm by a
- convicted felon, 18 U. S. C. 922(g), was a ``crime of violence'' as that
- term was then defined in USSG 4B1.2(1). While the case was on
- appeal, however, the Sentencing Commission promulgated
- Amendment 433, which added a sentence to the 4B1.2 commentary
- that expressly excluded the felon-in-possession offense from the
- ``crime of violence'' definition. The Court of Appeals nevertheless
- affirmed Stinson's sentence, adhering to its earlier interpretation
- that the crime in question was categorically a crime of violence and
- holding that the commentary to the Guidelines is not binding on the
- federal courts.
- Held: The Guidelines Manual's commentary which interprets or
- explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the
- Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly
- erroneous reading of, that guideline. Pp. 4-11.
- (a) The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the commentary
- added by Amendment 433 is not binding on the federal courts.
- Commentary which functions to ``interpret [a] guideline or explain
- how it is to be applied,'' 1B1.7, controls, and if failure to follow, or a
- misreading of, such commentary results in a sentence ``select[ed] . . .
- from the wrong guideline range,'' Williams v. United States, 503 U. S.
- ___, ___, that sentence would constitute ``an incorrect application of
- the . . . guidelines'' that should be set aside under 18 U. S. C.
- 3742(f)(1) unless the error was harmless, see Williams, supra, at
- ___. Guideline 1B1.7 makes this proposition clear, and this Court's
- holding in Williams, 503 U. S., at ___, that the Sentencing Com-
- mission's policy statements bind federal courts applies with equal
- force to the commentary at issue. However, it does not follow that
- commentary is binding in all instances. The standard that governs
- whether particular interpretive or explanatory commentary is
- binding is the one that applies to an agency's interpretation of its
- own legislative rule: Provided it does not violate the Constitution or
- a federal statute, such an interpretation must be given controlling
- weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the
- regulation it interprets. See, e.g., Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand
- Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414. Amended commentary is binding on the
- courts even though it is not reviewed by Congress, and prior judicial
- constructions of a particular guideline cannot prevent the Sentencing
- Commission from adopting a conflicting interpretation that satisfies
- the standard adopted herein. Pp. 4-10.
- (b) Application of the foregoing principles leads to the conclusion
- that federal courts may not use the felon-in-possession offense as the
- predicate crime of violence for purposes of imposing 4B1.1's career
- offender provision as to those defendants to whom Amendment 433
- applies. Although the guideline text may not compel the
- Amendment's exclusion of the offense in question from the ``crime of
- violence'' definition, the commentary is a binding interpretation of
- the quoted phrase because it does not run afoul of the Constitution or
- a federal statute, and it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with
- 4B1.2. Pp. 10-11.
- (c) The Court declines to address the Government's argument that
- Stinson's sentence conformed with the Guidelines Manual in effect
- when he was sentenced, and that the sentence may not be reversed
- on appeal based upon a postsentence amendment to the Manual's
- provisions. The Court of Appeals did not consider this theory, and it
- is not fairly included in the question this Court formulated in its
- grant of certiorari. It is left to be addressed on remand. P. 11.
- 943 F. 2d 1268, vacated and remanded.
- Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
-