United States v. Adolfo Wren
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2599
7th Cir.2013Background
- Congress reduced crack:powder ratio from 100:1 to 18:1, prompting Amendment 750 (guideline changes) and retroactive Amendment 759.
- Wren and Moton requested sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) after retroactive guideline changes.
- Original guideline ranges were 121–151 months; actual sentences were 100 months each.
- New ranges after Amendment 750: Wren 100–125 months; Moton 84–105 months.
- District judges refused reductions; prosecutor argued §5G1.1 tied ranges to statutory minimum, effectively unchanged.
- Question presented: whether §1B1.10 and §5G1.1 allow retroactive reductions when original range exceeded the floor but defendants’ sentences were below floor due to cooperation-based reductions.
- Court’s disposition: remand for district courts to exercise discretion under §3582(c)(2) consistent with §1B1.10 and Liberse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §5G1.1 applies to retroactive reductions. | Wren and Moton contend §5G1.1 must set the range at the minimum. | Prosecutor argues §1B1.1 sequence plus §5G1.1 ties to minimum. | No; §5G1.1 does not mandate resetting to minimum. |
| Whether §1B1.10(b)(1) requires resetting to the statutory minimum. | Original range calculations dictate the floor; amendments should lower the range. | Apply amended range but keep other decisions unchanged. | Amended range substituted without altering other decisions; no automatic reset to minimum. |
| Whether Wren and Moton may receive retroactive reductions despite below-range sentences. | Their sentences were 17% below original bottom; retroactive change should help. | Range not lowered for them if §5G1.1 anchors to minimum. | They are eligible for relief under §3582(c)(2) via §1B1.10; remanded for district-court discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2012) (holds district court may grant §3582(c)(2) relief without resetting to statutory minimum when original sentence below floor and retroactive guideline changes apply)
- United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2009) (recalculation after retroactive change discussed in §1B1.10 context)
- United States v. McClain, 691 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2012) (relevant appellate approach to retroactive guideline applications)
- United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (discusses retroactive guideline application mechanics)
- United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008) (related precedent on guideline amendments and retroactivity)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (statutory ratio change informs guideline adjustments)