NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0580n.06
Filed: August 15, 2006
No. 05-6000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
JOHNNY B. CAMPBELL, ) OPINION
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
BEFORE: SILER, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. In 2000, Defendant-Appellant Johnny Campbell pleaded guilty to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine and felon in possession of a firearm. The district court
originally sentenced him to 151 months of imprisonment. Campbell appealed, and this court
remanded for resentencing. On remand, the district court sentenced him to 82 months of
imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The court denied the Government’s request for
a career-offender enhancement under § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the
“Guidelines”). The Government now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in failing to apply
the enhancement.
Upon consideration of the entire record and for the reasons stated from the bench at oral
argument, we conclude that the district court committed clear error. There is no question on appeal
that Campbell met the first two elements of the career-offender enhancement – he was at least age
18 years when he committed the instant felony offense, and he was convicted of a controlled
No. 05-6000
United States v. Campbell
substance offense. As for the final element – at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime
of violence or controlled substance offense – Campbell’s two felony drug convictions in 1991 and
his one felony drug conviction in 1989 are sufficient to qualify him as a career offender. Because
the district court failed to calculate properly the advisory Guidelines range, we must vacate
Campbell’s sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Forrest, 402 F.3d 678, 684
(6th Cir. 2005) (“Sentencing courts must still [post-Booker] take the [G]uidelines into account and
must construe the [G]uidelines properly in doing so.”). In vacating Campbell’s sentence, we take
no position on the request for a downward departure he made below to the district court.
Accordingly, Campbell’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for
resentencing.
-2-