In Re SEALED CASE
406 U.S. App. D.C. 100
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2000 the appellant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, triggering a 20-year mandatory minimum.
- The government granted a substantial assistance motion, allowing a sentence below the minimum and below the guideline range.
- Amendment 706 (2007) lowered crack guidelines; retroactive Amendment 713 (2008) allowed earlier petitions for release.
- Amendment 750 (2011) further lowered crack guideline levels and was made retroactive; the appellant sought a § 3582(c)(2) reduction in 2011.
- The district court denied relief, invoking § 1B1.10; the court held that a retroactive amendment cannot lower the range when a mandatory minimum applied.
- The court determined the appellant’s sentence was based on the guideline range due to the § 3553(e) substantial-assistance motion, and thus eligible for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was 'based on' a lowered range for § 3582(c)(2) purposes | Griffith argues the guideline range was the basis for the sentence after § 3553(e) relief. | The government contends the mandatory minimum governs and defeats eligibility. | Yes; sentence was based on the guideline range and eligible for review. |
| Whether § 1B1.10(m) policy statement allows reductions when a mandatory minimum was waived | Amendment 750 should lower the range because the minimum was waived by § 3553(e). | The mandatory minimum precludes retroactive lowering per § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). | Yes; amendments may lower the range where the minimum was waived and eligibility follows § 1B1.10. |
| If eligible, whether reduction must be limited by § 1B1.10(b) to the low end of the amended range | Appellant should be reduced to the low end of the amended range. | Policy statement constrains reductions; may not exceed limitations. | Remand for district court to determine appropriate extent of reduction. |
| Whether § 3553(e) defendants may ever obtain § 3582(c)(2) relief | § 3582(c)(2) eligibility should extend to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) and § 3553(e) contexts. | Chronology and precedent limit relief for § 3553(e) defendants. | Appellant may be eligible; not categorically barred. |
| What governs the district court’s exercise of discretion on remand | Court should determine whether a reduced sentence is warranted. | Discretion remains with the district court to decide the extent of reduction. | Remand to proceed with § 3582(c)(2) proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. etc. (Supreme Court 2010) (binding policy statement on § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Freeman, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (plurality on 'based on' range; guiding reduction eligibility)
- United States v. Epps, 707 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (interprets Freeman plurality for 'based on' analysis)
- United States v. Cook, 594 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (distinguishes cases where mandatory minimum trumps guideline range)
- United States v. Berry, 618 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (guideline range versus mandatory minimum interaction; § 1B1.10 analysis)
- United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (statutory minimum as guideline sentence when greater than range)
- Roa-Medina v. United States, 607 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. 2010) (§ 1B1.10 and minima interaction in lowerings)
- Hood v. United States, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009) (application of § 1B1.10 to mandatory minimums)
- Savani v. United States, 3d Cir. WL 2462941 (3d Cir. 2013) (note on ambiguity and eligibility; not an official reporter citation)