United States v. Anthony Bailey, 777 F.3d 904

Anthony Bailey pled guilty in 2011 under an 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement that fixed a 240-month sentence but reserved his right to seek relief if the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) later applied to his case.
Bailey committed his offense before the FSA took effect but was sentenced after it; the Supreme Court later decided Dorsey, holding the FSA applies to such defendants.
Bailey filed a pro se motion in 2013 seeking a reduced sentence; the district court denied relief using a § 3582(c)(2) form order. Bailey appealed.
The district court had calculated a Guidelines range (absent statutory minimum) of 85–104 months; at sentencing the court applied a then-understood 20-year mandatory minimum.
The panel concluded § 3582(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2) did not authorize relief here, but that Bailey’s motion is properly treated as a § 2255 collateral attack because his sentence was imposed contrary to law (mandatory minimum was actually 10 years per Dorsey).
The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded: vacate Bailey’s sentence and hold a new sentencing hearing under § 2255, leaving factual sentencing considerations to the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bailey)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes reduction based on FSA/Dorsey	§ 3582(c)(2) applies because Guidelines or ranges were affected by FSA implementation	The Sentencing Commission did not retroactively lower Bailey’s range; § 1B1.10 not implicated	Denied — § 3582(c)(2) does not apply
Whether § 3582(c)(1)(B) permits modifying a final sentence to apply Dorsey/FSA	§ 3582(c)(1)(B) could supply jurisdiction to modify sentence post-Dorsey	§ 3582(c)(1)(B) is narrow; modification only "expressly permitted by statute" (i.e., appeal or § 2255)	Denied — § 3582(c)(1)(B) does not authorize relief
Whether Bailey can obtain relief via § 2255 despite plea waiver/forfeiture	Bailey seeks § 2255 relief because sentence imposed under mistaken view of mandatory minimum; plea reserved such collateral challenge	Government acknowledges reservation in plea and urges merits consideration; may forgo procedural defenses	Granted — treat motion as § 2255, vacate sentence, remand for resentencing

Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (held FSA applies to offenders who committed offenses before FSA but were sentenced after its effective date)
United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011) (circuit precedent before Dorsey on applicable mandatory minimums)
United States v. Penson, 526 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2008) (narrow reading of § 3582(c)(1)(B) jurisdiction)
United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469 (4th Cir. 2004) (§ 3582(c)(1)(B) limited scope analysis)
United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2001) (interpretation of "expressly permitted by statute")
United States v. Triestman, 178 F.3d 624 (2d Cir. 1999) (limitations on district court authority under § 3582)
United States v. Hodge, 721 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2013) (FSA does not itself provide independent basis for sentence reduction)
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976) (recognition of court discretion to excuse forfeiture or waiver)