United States v. Boulding
379 F. Supp. 3d 646
W.D. Mich.2019Background
- In 2008 a jury convicted Boulding of (1) conspiracy to distribute 50+ grams of crack and (2) possession with intent to distribute 5+ grams of crack; a PSR attributed ~650.4 g to him.
- The government filed a §851 notice alleging two prior felony drug convictions; under the pre‑Fair Sentencing Act statutory scheme a conviction for 50+ g with two priors mandated life.
- The district court sentenced Boulding to life on Count 1 (and 360 months on Count 2, concurrent), stating at sentencing that life was harsher than it would have imposed in the exercise of full discretion.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised crack thresholds (50→280 g; 5→28 g) but was not retroactive; the First Step Act (2018) made those statutory changes retroactive for covered offenses and authorized discretionary reductions.
- The parties disputed (1) the correct eligibility test under the First Step Act (whether eligibility depends on actual attributable quantity) and (2) the proper process and scope of any resentencing or reduction under §3582(c)(1)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is eligible under §404 of the First Step Act? | Gov: eligibility depends on the defendant's actual attributable quantity; if post‑FSA thresholds would still be met, no eligibility. | Boulding: eligibility should depend only on jury‑found or admitted quantity (Apprendi/Alleyne limits). | Court: Eligibility is categorical — any conviction that is a "covered offense" (i.e., charge under statutes whose penalties were modified by the FSA) is eligible; quantity affects only discretionary relief. |
| What sources may determine quantity for eligibility? | Gov: courts may consult PSR, sentencing findings, trial record to determine attributable quantity. | Boulding: only admitted facts or jury findings should be used (to avoid Apprendi/Alleyne problems). | Court: Quantity is unnecessary to the eligibility determination; the "covered offense" test controls. Quantity remains relevant to the exercise of discretion, not to categorical eligibility. |
| Scope/process of resentencing under First Step Act | Gov: limit review to guideline and statutory recalculation; no plenary resentencing. | Boulding: requests plenary resentencing allowing renewed objections and full reconsideration. | Court: Not a plenary resentencing; relief flows from §3582(c)(1)(B) as authorized by the FSA/First Step Act. Court may consider guidelines, §3553 factors, and record materials but has discretion to grant, deny, or tailor relief without a full resentencing hearing. |
| Application to Boulding (outcome) | N/A (gov argued ineligibility based on PSR quantity) | N/A (defense argued eligibility and requested reduction) | Court: Found Boulding eligible as a covered offender; recalculated guideline range (292–365 months) under amended law and reduced sentence to 324 months concurrent on both counts, exercising §3553(a) discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blewett v. United States, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013) (discussing nonretroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act prior to First Step Act)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (held the Fair Sentencing Act applies to defendants sentenced on or after its effective date)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase mandatory penalties must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (extends Apprendi to facts that increase statutory mandatory minimums)
- Simmons v. United States, 375 F. Supp. 3d 379 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (discussing First Step Act §404 and its scope)
- Tucker v. United States, 356 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Iowa 2019) (illustrative application of First Step Act relief for career‑offender status)