Shepard Document Reliance for Categorical Determination of “Crime of Violence” in Sentencing Enhancements

Introduction

United States v. Deondrae Key, decided by the Sixth Circuit on May 16, 2025, addresses how district courts may rely on Presentence Reports (PSRs) and underlying “Shepard” documents when determining whether prior convictions qualify as “crimes of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant‐appellant Deondrae Key pleaded guilty to felony possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and faced a Guidelines range enhanced by two prior Tennessee aggravated‐assault convictions. Key challenged the district court’s procedural and substantive reasonableness, arguing (1) the court misapplied the Guidelines by treating his aggravated‐assault convictions as crimes of violence without proper Shepard materials, (2) it failed adequately to explain its variance decisions, and (3) it over‐weighted his criminal history. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, clarifying the limits and proper uses of PSRs and Shepard documents in “categorical” sentencing analyses.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit held that:

• Under plain‐error review, any possible procedural error in failing to obtain specific Shepard documents did not affect Key’s substantial rights because judicial notice of the Tennessee charging documents and judgments confirms his aggravated‐assault convictions involved strangulation—categorically a “crime of violence.”
• The district court properly adopted the PSR’s undisputed Guidelines calculations, granted a one‐level downward departure in criminal‐history category, and then imposed an 87‐month sentence at the top of the advisory range (70–87 months).
• The court gave a reasoned explanation for denying both the government’s requested upward variance to 96 months and Key’s downward variance to 60 months, relying on Key’s violent history, deterrence concerns, and § 3553(a) factors.
• Key’s within‐Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, and no abuse of discretion occurred.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The opinion builds on a robust Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court precedential framework:

• Shepard v. United States (544 U.S. 13, 2005): Lists documents (charging instrument, plea agreement, plea colloquy) that courts may consult to determine the elements of a prior conviction without resorting to the underlying facts.
• Descamps v. United States (570 U.S. 254, 2013): Prescribes the categorical and modified categorical approaches for determining whether a prior state conviction qualifies for a federal sentencing enhancement.
• United States v. Armes (953 F.3d 875, 2020): Permits district courts to rely on undisputed PSR characterizations of underlying Shepard documents if those documents are clearly identified and themselves Shepard‐approved.
• United States v. Ferguson (681 F.3d 826, 2012): Allows judicial notice of state‐court records when they are “reasonably indisputable” to verify eligibility for a sentencing enhancement.
• Guidelines calculation and reasonableness standards: Presley (547 F.3d 625, procedural); Baker (559 F.3d 443, proper base‐level calculation); Gall (552 U.S. 38, substantive reasonableness); Rita (551 U.S. 338, appellate review of within‐Guidelines sentences).
• Procedural default and plain‐error review: Bostic (371 F.3d 865, unobjected‐to sentencing errors); Puckett v. United States (556 U.S. 129, three‐part plain‐error test).

Legal Reasoning

1. Categorical Approach and Shepard Materials
Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1), a “crime of violence” requires an element of the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” Tennessee aggravated assault (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102) is divisible: one subsection punishes strangulation. The district court relied on the PSR’s undisputed characterization that Key’s two prior convictions were for strangulation assaults. Key argued the court needed to consult actual charging docs or plea colloquies. The Sixth Circuit found that—even if a procedural error occurred by not explicitly reviewing the precise Shepard documents that the PSR summarized—that error was harmless under plain‐error review because judicially noticed indictments and judgments indisputably show that both convictions involved strangulation. As a matter of law, aggravated‐assault‐by‐strangulation categorically qualifies as a crime of violence, justifying the § 2K2.1(a)(2) base‐level enhancement to 24.

2. Reliance on Undisputed PSR Findings
Consistent with Armes and Treadway, the court may adopt undisputed PSR facts—including PSR references to charging documents—so long as those PSR statements are grounded in Shepard‐approved materials. Here, the generic “court records” citation in the PSR was bolstered by judicial notice of the indictments and judgments, eliminating any doubt about the prior offenses’ elements.

3. Procedural Reasonableness and Variances
The court correctly calculated Key’s total offense level (24–3 for acceptance = 21) and criminal‐history category (downward‐departed from VI to V based on marijuana‐possession points). After considering both parties’ variance requests, it imposed an 87‐month sentence at the upper end of the 70–87‐month advisory range. The court explained its reasoning, citing Key’s violent record, the need for deterrence and protection of the public, and mitigating factors (mental health, difficult childhood). The Sixth Circuit found no failure to explain, since the district court: (a) adopted the PSR’s undisputed facts, (b) explicitly stated it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, and (c) provided a reasoned basis for declining both the government’s upward variance and Key’s downward variance.

4. Substantive Reasonableness
The within‐Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable (Gall). Key’s argument that the court over‐weighted his criminal history and under‐weighted mitigating factors fails. The record shows the court balanced all § 3553(a) factors—seriousness of the offense, history and characteristics of the defendant, deterrence, protection of the public—and imposed a sentence well within the advisory range.

Impact

United States v. Key provides important guidance on three fronts:

• PSR Reliance Clarified – District courts may safely adopt undisputed PSR statements about a prior conviction’s statutory elements when the PSR clearly draws on Shepard‐approved materials, or when judicial notice independently confirms those elements.
• Plain‐Error Harmlessness – Even under plain‐error review, sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions will not be upset if the underlying state‐court records (charging documents, plea judgments) indisputably show that the conviction qualifies under the categorical approach.
• Sentencing Explanation Standards – A within‐Guidelines sentence that rests on an explicit adoption of the PSR, a clear discussion of § 3553(a) factors, and a reasoned explanation of variances satisfies both procedural and substantive reasonableness requirements on appeal.

Future sentencing courts in the Sixth Circuit will look to Key when evaluating how rigorously they must document Shepard‐based findings in the presence of an undisputed PSR or when considering inviting judicial notice of state‐court records to shore up enhancement determinations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Categorical vs. Modified Categorical Approach: When a state statute lists alternative elements (e.g., aggravated assault by strangulation vs. another type of assault), courts use the modified categorical approach to identify which version of the crime the defendant committed, based on limited documents (Shepard materials) rather than full factual records.
• Shepard Documents: Charging papers, plea agreements, plea colloquies, or comparable records that allow a sentencing court to identify the statutory elements of a prior conviction without delving into every fact underlying that conviction.
• Plain‐Error Review: Applied when a defendant fails to object at sentencing. The appellant must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Even if all three prongs are satisfied, the appellate court will only correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
• Substantive vs. Procedural Reasonableness: Procedural reasonableness concerns correct Guidelines calculation, consideration of § 3553(a) factors, and adequate explanation. Substantive reasonableness examines whether the chosen sentence is too long or too short in light of sentencing goals.

Conclusion

United States v. Deondrae Key affirms that Sixth Circuit sentencing courts may rely on undisputed PSR statements about prior convictions—supplemented by judicial notice of state‐court records—to apply sentence‐enhancing “crime of violence” provisions. The decision emphasizes that harmless‐error principles can save a challenged enhancement when the proper elements are indisputable. It also reinforces that a within‐Guidelines sentence, accompanied by an explicit § 3553(a) discussion and reasoned justification for variances, will survive both procedural and substantive attacks on appeal. Key thus consolidates best practices for sentencing courts and clarifies the interplay between Shepard materials, PSR reliance, and appellate review standards in the Sixth Circuit.