United States v. Andre Ware
694 F.3d 527
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Ware convicted of crack cocaine offenses; initial guideline level 18, CHC VI, career offender upgrading to 34/VI, resulting range 262–327 months; trial court granted downward variance to 128 months.
- Stratton convicted of crack cocaine offenses; initial level 32, CHC IV, upgraded to VI with level 37, resulting range 360 months–life; downward departure set range 235–293 months, sentence 240 months.
- Amendment 750 (crack cocaine base offense levels) and Amendment 759 (retroactive eligibility) became effective Nov. 1, 2011; commentary to § 1B1.10 added clarifications.
- Commentary to § 1B1.10(c) and § 1B1.10(a)(1) limit eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) reductions to amendments that lower the applicable guideline range determined before departures or variances.
- Ware moved for § 3582(c)(2) reduction; district court granted reduction citing invalidity of the commentary; government appealed.
- Stratton moved for § 3582(c)(2) reduction; district court denied; Stratton appealed this denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 750/759 retroactively lowers the applicable range for variances/departures. | Ware/Stratton argue Commentary conflicts with § 3582(c)(2). | United States argues Commentary constrains reductions as consistent with § 3582(c)(2). | Commentary binding; not conflict with § 3582(c)(2). |
| Whether the 1B1.10 commentary is binding on district courts in § 3582(c)(2) determinations. | Ware/Stratton contend it conflicts with statute. | Government argues it is valid and binding. | Commentary binding; it precludes reductions where range not lowered. |
| Whether the term “based on” in Freeman governs eligibility or the Commentary governs under § 3582(c)(2). | Freeman controls; commentary irrelevant. | Commentary complements, not conflicts with Freeman. | Commentary does not conflict with Freeman; it is binding. |
| Whether the Court should harmonize with Doe v. United States regarding § 3582(c)(2) interpretations. | Doe supports using policy statements to interpret § 3582(c)(2). | Doe is consistent with treating the commentary as binding. | Doe corroborates treating the commentary as binding. |
| Whether the district court decisions should be affirmed or reversed given the binding commentary. | Ware seeks reversal of denial; Stratton seeks relief. | District courts properly applied the commentary. | Ware reversed, Stratton affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. United States, 564 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2009) (policy statements incorporated into § 3582(c)(2) guidance)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (“based on” interpretation for plea-based sentences)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 1993) (agency interpretation binding unless plainly erroneous)
- LaBonte v. United States, 520 U.S. 751 (Supreme Court 1997) (agency interpretations valid unless inconsistent with statute)
- Barney v. United States, 672 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2012) (career offender/depature vs. applicable range)