United States v. Andrew Kennedy
406 U.S. App. D.C. 178
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Kennedy was convicted in the late 1980s of crack cocaine trafficking with a PSR estimating 380.92 grams, yielding a base offense level 34 and a leadership enhancement, resulting in a 328-month sentence.
- At sentencing, counsel conceded the drug quantity calculation; Kennedy did not challenge the PSR's quantity finding and pleaded innocence only to the crimes themselves.
- In 2007 and retroactively in 2009, the Sentencing Commission lowered crack guidelines, and Kennedy was reduced to 293 months under § 3582(c)(2).
- In 2011, Kennedy sought another reduction under § 3582(c)(2), arguing the sentencing judge never made a drug-quantity finding; the district court held the judge implicitly adopted the PSR quantity of 380.92 grams.
- The district court’s implicit adoption was reviewed for clear error; the court affirmed, noting defense counsel did not object to the PSR quantity and had previously relied on the PSR, and the appeal followed the standard that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not plenary resentencing.
- The court rejected Kennedy’s attempt to relitigate drug quantity in a § 3582(c)(2) motion, aligning with other circuits that avoid reopening drug-quantity issues in such proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion by refusing to reopen the drug-quantity issue. | Kennedy argues the sentencing judge failed to determine drug quantity and thus a live factual issue remains. | The district court correctly found the sentencing court implicitly adopted the PSR quantity; § 3582(c)(2) does not allow relitigation of settled sentencing facts. | No error; district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous and denial was within discretion. |
| Whether the sentencing court implicitly adopted the PSR’s drug quantity. | Kennedy contends there was no explicit or implicit adoption of quantity by the original judge. | The implicit adoption is supported by the sentencing court imposing a base offense level aligned with the PSR quantity. | Not clearly erroneous; the record supports implicit adoption by the sentencing judge. |
| Whether a general defense objection at sentencing suffices to challenge drug quantity in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. | Kennedy’s statements allegedly challenging scope of drug trafficking constitute a specific challenge to quantity. | General objections to conviction do not amount to a specific challenge to drug quantity; lack of explicit objection defeats re-litigation. | Not deemed a specific challenge; thus not reopenable in § 3582(c)(2). |
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) hearings are appropriate fora to revisit original sentencing facts. | Kennedy seeks to revisit the original drug-quantity finding under changed law. | § 3582(c)(2) hearings are limited, non-plenary proceedings limited to applying changed sentencing law to established facts. | Not appropriate to relitigate; the proceedings do not allow reopening settled factual determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lafayette, 585 F.3d 435 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (affirms deferential review of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings and limited nature)
- Pinnick v. United States, 47 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (unspecified facts; supports that undisputed PSR facts may be relied upon)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (reaffirms limitations of § 3582(c)(2) as not enabling wholesale resentencing)
- United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoted about non-cognizability of certain sentencing-issues in § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court did not abuse discretion in denying evidentiary hearing on drug quantity)
- United States v. Hall, 600 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2010) (district courts have substantial discretion in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (reiterates broad discretion in adjudicating § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)