United States v. Battle
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Battle was convicted in 1997 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base.
- Original sentencing found well over 1.5 kilograms of crack attributable to Battle and yielded life imprisonment range.
- PSR and district court adopted that Battle was responsible for at least 1.5 kg; court noted several kilograms distributed overall.
- In 1998, Battle was sentenced to 360 months; the court did not adopt a single explicit quantity beyond the 1.5 kg threshold.
- In 2011, Battle moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce sentence after Amendments 750 & 759; district court calculated 3.4 kg for a new range.
- We reverse and remand, holding the district court’s 3.4 kg calculation was not supported by original sentencing findings and double-counted certain quantities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a district court perform supplemental quantity calculations in §3582(c)(2)? | Battle contends court cannot supplement; limits to amended range. | Court may rely on record to determine amended range. | Yes; court may supplement, but only to determine amended range. |
| Can the district court rely on prior findings or PSR without new factual findings to determine amended range? | Original findings binding; cannot recalculate beyond 1.5 kg. | May use PSR/adopted findings for supplemental quantity. | Court may rely on prior findings but not rely on double counting; must ensure consistency with original record. |
| Was 3.4 kilograms properly attributed to Battle at resentencing? | District court’s 3.4 kg is supported by PSR paragraphs 43, 45, 46. | Total attributed by summing co-conspirator amounts without double counting. | No; error to double-count; quantity should be between 1.8 and 3.4 kg, with no clear basis for 3.4 kg. |
| Did the district court err in treating ‘several kilograms’ as a definite quantity? | Court could rely on original sentencing language to justify higher quantity. | ‘Several’ is not a precise quantity; cannot alone establish 3 kg. | Yes; cannot rely on vague language to justify higher quantity. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McGee, 615 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2010) (two-step § 3582(c)(2) process; eligibility and extent of reduction, then factors)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (Supreme Court 2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) is limited; not a full resentencing)
- United States v. Freeman, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (district court’s authority under § 3582(c)(2) is narrowly constrained)
- United States v. Moore, 582 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court may rely on PSR findings but cannot definitively link to larger quantity without explicit basis)
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court may rely on PSR/adopted findings to make supplemental, not inconsistent, findings)
- United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court may rely on adopted PSR findings but must reflect accurate quantities)
- United States v. Topete-Plascencia, 351 F.3d 454 (10th Cir. 2003) (no double counting; quantity calculations must avoid duplicative attributions)
- United States v. Havens, 910 F.2d 703 (10th Cir. 1990) (avoid reliance on theoretical maximum quantities; err on cautious side)