United States v. Beard
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4591
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Beard pled guilty in 2005 to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine; involved at least 50 grams and received the then-mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.
- After the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered crack-offense levels, Beard sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in 2008, which the district court denied because his sentence was dictated by a statutorily mandated minimum.
- In 2012 Beard again moved under § 3582(c)(2) arguing the Fair Sentencing Act and retroactive guideline amendments made him eligible for a reduction; the district court again denied.
- Beard cited a panel Blewett decision suggesting the Act should benefit crack offenders retroactively; the Seventh Circuit later denied that retroactive effect en banc, holding the Act does not undo final sentences.
- Sixteen days after the 2012 denial, Beard moved for reconsideration; the district court denied, and Beard’s notice of appeal was timed to challenge the reconsideration ruling rather than the 2012 denial.
- The Seventh Circuit held the motion for reconsideration was untimely and not a proper Rule 35/other post-judgment option; § 3582(c)(2) motions are non-jurisdictional limits giving only one opportunity for modification per retroactive guideline change, so the district court correctly denied the request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the reconsideration motion | Beard argues reconsideration was timely under 14 days post-denial. | Beard’s motion was filed 16 days after denial, untimely. | Untimely; valid appeal only from 2012 denial, not the untimely reconsideration. |
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) limits the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction | Statutory limits may restrict successive § 3582(c)(2) motions as jurisdictional. | Limit is non-jurisdictional, a case-processing rule prohibiting successive motions. | Not jurisdictional; nevertheless, disposition stays within the rules limiting successive motions. |
| Authority to grant relief after a retroactive guideline change | Retroactive FSA and guideline amendments should reduce Beard’s sentence. | Final sentence tied to statutorily mandated minimum; retroactive changes do not apply to Beard. | District court lacked authority to grant relief; Beard had one opportunity per retroactive amendment, which he had exhausted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013) (district court cannot grant post-judgment relief under § 3582(c)(2) forms of resentencing)
- United States v. Robinson, 697 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2012) (post-sentencing changes in law do not permit resentencing)
- United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011) (timeliness and scope of § 3582(c)(2) motions; one opportunity per retroactive change)
- United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2010) (one opportunity to request modification under a given guideline amendment)
- United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013) (panel view that FSA retroactivity could apply; en banc later rejected)
- United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2013) (circuits agree § 3582(c)(2) limits are non-jurisdictional)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2012) (limitations on successive § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (jurisdictional questions require express congressional language)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen, 558 U.S. 67 (U.S. 2009) (limits on adjudicatory reach should not be presumed jurisdictional)