United States v. Aaron Davis
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10905
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Consolidated appeal from six defendants’ § 3582(c)(2) motions following retroactive crack amendments.
- Defendants Suggs, Davis, Seantai Suggs, Price, Dilworth, and Davison were key members of the Concord Affiliated street gang (CCA) in Gary, Indiana.
- Original sentences were based on large drug quantities; offenses involved crack cocaine distribution from 1994–2001.
- Amendment 706 (lowered crack cocaine base levels) was made retroactive by Amendment 713; Amendment 748 later revised 2010–2011.
- District court denied each motion after confirming each defendant’s base offense level and quantity determinations, with Davison receiving a different PSR finding.
- Court addresses whether retroactive amendments and the § 3553(a) factors justify sentence reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify under § 3582(c)(2). | Bobby argues amendment lowered range; district court had discretion. | Suggs contends modification could proceed under § 3582(c)(2) regardless of range lowering. | No jurisdiction where original range not lowered by Amendment 706. |
| Whether Amendment 706 lowered the applicable guideline ranges for the defendants. | Defendants argue retroactive amendment should reduce ranges. | Government/probation show ranges remained unchanged due to >4.5 kg thresholds. | For those responsible for more than 4.5 kg, Amendment 706 did not lower the range. |
| Whether district court properly allowed new quantity findings in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. | Court relied on original sentencing findings only. | Court could make new, consistent findings using the record and PSRs. | District court may make new, consistent findings; not abuse when relying on the PSR and record. |
| Whether the district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors after eligibility determinations. | Discretion to consider 3553(a) after eligibility; requests below-Guidelines sentence permissible. | Court need not provide full § 3553(a) analysis for every factor. | Court's brief, non-detailed 3553(a) reasoning suffices; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 571 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional limits of § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Lawrence, 535 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2008) (subject-matter jurisdiction and § 3582(c)(2) limits)
- United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction to modify sentence under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Poole, 550 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2008) (scope of review for § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (U.S. 2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) is a modification, not resentencing)
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (adoption of PSR findings in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Dewayne Hall, 600 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2010) (new findings permissible when consistent with original)