United States v. Antonio Reeves
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12880
8th Cir.2013Background
- Reeves pled guilty in 2004 to distributing five grams or more of cocaine base, offense with a 40-year max.
- Because of prior convictions, Reeves was sentenced under the career offender guideline, yielding 188–235 months and a bottom-of-range sentence.
- Post-sentencing, Amendments 709, 750, and 759 were issued; 709 not retroactive, 750/759 modified crack guidelines in response to the Fair Sentencing Act.
- Reeves moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); the district court denied the motion.
- Court concludes the Fair Sentencing Act amendments are not retroactive to Reeves’s 2004 sentencing, so his guideline range remains the same.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| retroactivity of Amendment 709 | Reeves asserts United States v. Johnson allows retroactivity review. | Government argues Johnson bars retroactivity review of non-retroactivity determinations. | Johnson forecloses Reeves; Amendment 709 not retroactive. |
| impact of Amendments 750/759 on Reeves under § 3582(c)(2) | Amendments 750/759 lowered crack guidelines and, via Fair Sentencing Act, should apply to Reeves' range. | Because Reeves was sentenced under career offender, these amendments are inapplicable to his range. | Amendments 750/759 do not affect Reeves; his 2004 career offender range stands. |
| whether Fair Sentencing Act applies in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings | FA S Act maximums should apply to Reeves' range in § 3582(c)(2). | § 3582(c)(2) uses retroactive changes only; FSA nonretroactive for pre-August 3, 2010 sentences. | FSA does not retroactively apply to Reeves; § 3582(c)(2) relief not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013) (cannot set aside non-retroactivity determinations; arbitrary-and-capricious review not allowed)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (Supreme Court 2012) (FA S Act penalties apply to pre-Act offenders only if after Act; guides retroactivity analysis)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (Supreme Court 2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes reduction of a final sentence, not full resentencing)
- United States v. Harris, 688 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2012) (career-offender status governs; amendments to crack guidelines irrelevant for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 2013) (retroactivity and § 3582(c)(2) considerations for amendments)
- United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir. 2013) (retroactivity framework for § 3582(c)(2) cases)
- United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 2013) (retroactivity of amendments under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Robinson, 697 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2012) (guideline-age considerations under § 3582(c)(2))