United States v. Adam Lawin
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3498
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Lawin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute MDMA; district court sentenced him to 147 months and 5 years' supervised release.
- Guidelines range was 135 to 168 months at sentencing.
- Prior to sentencing, both sides moved for a two-level downward variance in anticipation of Amendment 782; the district court declined to apply the amendment prospectively.
- Lawin appealed arguing the district court erred in denying the downward variance and in denying a continuance to wait for Amendment 782.
- The majority held the court was not required to consider pending amendments and did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance; Amendment 782 became effective Nov. 1, 2014, with retroactive applicability, and Lawin may pursue relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) on remand; the dissent would remand for consideration of a 3582(c)(2) reduction but the majority declined to remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying a downward variance | Lawin sought variance anticipating Amendment 782 | Court could apply the amendment only prospectively and was not required to consider pending amendments | No error; no mandatory consideration of pending amendment. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance | Denial prejudiced Lawin by preventing consideration of Amendment 782 | No abuse of discretion in denying the continuance | No abuse of discretion. |
| Whether mootness/remand issue affects the appeal given Amendment 782 | Lawin should get relief under Amendment 782; appeal moot | Relief under § 3582(c)(2) separate from appeal; remand not required | Remand not required on appeal; Lawin may pursue § 3582(c)(2) relief in district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Allebach, 526 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 2008) (court not required to apply pending amendment; retroactive amendment possibility)
- United States v. Davis, 276 Fed.Appx. 527 (8th Cir. 2008) (permissible to consider amendments; not required to apply pending amendment)
- United States v. Harris, 74 F.3d 1244 (8th Cir. 1996) (premise that amendments may be prospectively applied)
- United States v. Adams, 509 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2007) (apply guidelines in effect at sentencing unless ex post facto)
- United States v. Woods, 642 F.3d 640 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuance; prejudice shown or not)