United States v. Brooks
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20878
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- In June 2010 Daren Brooks pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥50 g of crack cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841).
- At sentencing in October 2012 the district court applied the 2008 edition of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the edition in effect at the time of the offense), rather than the 2011 edition in effect at sentencing.
- The Sentencing Commission issued Amendments 748 (temporary) and 750 (permanent) after the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) to reduce base offense levels for certain crack offenses to conform Guidelines to the FSA.
- The district court determined the 2008 Guidelines produced a lower total Guidelines range for Brooks than the 2011 edition, and refused to apply Amendments 748/750 to the 2008 edition, ruling the amendments substantive not clarifying.
- The district court sentenced Brooks to 300 months within-Guidelines; Brooks appealed only the district court’s refusal to apply Amendments 748/750 and argued his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendments 748 and 750 are "clarifying" so they may be applied to an earlier Guidelines edition under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(2) | Gov't: Amendments are substantive and need not be applied when an earlier edition yields a lower range | Brooks: Amendments merely implemented FSA and thus are clarifying; defendant should receive reduced base offense level | Amendments 748 and 750 are substantive, not clarifying; district court properly declined to apply them to the 2008 manual |
| Whether the district court erred by applying the 2008 Guidelines in full despite intervening amendments | Gov't: Applying the earlier manual in full was proper because the 2008 range was lower and amendments were substantive | Brooks: He should receive the benefit of later amendments that reduced base offense levels | Affirmed: court correctly applied 2008 manual without Amendments 748/750 |
| Whether the fact that amendments implemented a congressional directive (FSA) makes them clarifying | Gov't: Implementation of congressional directive does not convert a substantive change into a clarification | Brooks: Because Congress changed statutory penalties, amendments merely conformed Guidelines and thus clarified prior intent | Court: Implementation pursuant to FSA does not make an amendment clarifying if it effects substantive change |
| Whether Brooks’s 300‑month within‑Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Gov't: Sentence was within Guidelines and reasonable | Brooks: Sentence substantively unreasonable (no nonfrivolous basis shown) | Sentence held not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 1999) (later revisions that merely clarify prior intent may benefit a defendant sentenced under an earlier version)
- United States v. Sabbeth, 277 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2002) (factors for distinguishing substantive vs. clarifying amendments)
- United States v. Amico, 573 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2009) (Guidelines amendment decreasing an enhancement was substantive)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for substantive reasonableness review)