UNITED STATES of AMERICA v. NATHANIEL PEMBROOK, SHAEED CALHOUN, DAVID BRILEY, and ORLANDO JOHNSON

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 19a0437n.06
CASE Nos. 16-1650/1706/1707/1708
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NATHANIEL PEMBROOK, SHAEED
CALHOUN, DAVID BRILEY, and
ORLANDO JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Upon convictions for robbery, conspiracy,
and firearms charges, the district court imposed lengthy prison sentences on four co-defendants.
On appeal, we affirmed. United States v. Pembrook, 876 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2017).
In that appeal the defendants argued that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally
vague, so the § 924(c) minimum sentences did not apply and resentencing was warranted. We
rejected that argument based on then-binding Sixth Circuit precedent, but acknowledged that if the
defendants were correct, that would warrant resentencing. Id. at 830-31.
The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and the Court remanded for
reconsideration of this issue. See, e.g., Pembrook v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 68 (2018). In the
meantime, the Court has now held that that § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. United
States v. Davis, No. 18-431, 588 U.S. - -, 2019 WL 2570623, at *13 (June 24, 2019).
Consequently, we remand these cases to the district court for resentencing.

-- 1 of 1 --