United States v. Bowman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2314
5th Cir.2011Background
- Bowman was convicted in 1996 of kidnapping and using a firearm during a crime of violence, with related sentencing enhancements for aggravated sexual abuse during the kidnapping.
- The base offense level for kidnapping was increased due to aggravated sexual abuse under § 2A4.1 and further elevated for victim injury, abduction, and fear of death/serious injury.
- A four-level increase under § 2A3.1(b)(1) was applied for aggravated sexual abuse by force or threat during the kidnapping, tied to § 2241 conduct.
- Bowman also received a mandatory consecutive 60-month sentence for the § 924(c) firearm offense, resulting in a total term of 322 months.
- In 2008 Bowman sought § 3582(c)(2) relief arguing Amendment 599 retroactively affected his underlying guideline range; the district court denied the motion.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Amendment 599 did not lower Bowman's guideline range and thus did not permit a § 3582(c)(2) reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Amendment 599 lower Bowman's guideline range for relief under §3582(c)(2)? | Bowman argues Amendment 599 retroactively lowers the underlying range. | Government argues Amendment 599 does not lower the range for Bowman's offense. | Amendment 599 did not lower Bowman's guideline range. |
| Is the §2A3.1(b)(1) four-level enhancement permissible alongside a §924(c) sentence as double counting? | Enhancement for aggravated sexual abuse based on firearm-related force overlaps with §924(c) and is impermissible double counting. | Enhancement rested on independent force used by co-defendant, not duplicative of the firearm sentence. | Not double counting; force independent of the firearm was found. |
| Should Bowman's §3582(c)(2) relief be granted given Amendment 599 retroactivity? | If Amendment 599 applies, a reduction is authorized. | Amendment 599 does not justify a reduction because it does not lower the range. | Relief denied; Amendment 599 did not lower the range. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (guidelines interpretation for §3582(c)(2) de novo; abuse of discretion standard for reductions)
- United States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 2001) (Amendment 599’s effect on firearm enhancements with §924(c))
- United States v. Lucas, 157 F.3d 998 (5th Cir. 1998) (definition of force under §2241 for aggravated sexual abuse)
- United States v. Franks, 230 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 2000) (double counting concerns when weapon threat relates to firearm use)
- United States v. Katalinic, 510 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2007) (double counting concerns with firearm-related enhancements)
- United States v. Issac, 396 Fed.Appx. 55 (5th Cir. 2010) ( Amendment 599 did not alter the general rule against applying firearm enhancements to underlying offenses when §924(c) applies)