United States v. Brooks
891 F.3d 432
| 2d Cir. | 2018Background
- Daren Brooks pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥50g of crack cocaine and was sentenced in 2012 to 300 months’ imprisonment under the 2008 Guidelines (offense level 36, CHC IV).
- In 2014 the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 782 (made retroactive), generally lowering drug offense levels by two; for Brooks the Amendment produced a base level 32 (a four-level drop from his 2008 base).
- Probation, the Government, and Brooks’ reply mistakenly calculated the amended base level as 34 (a two-level drop), producing an alleged revised range of 210–262 months; the correct revised range is 168–210 months.
- Brooks moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction; the district court denied the motion in exercise of discretion but did not state whether it had determined eligibility or calculated the amended Guidelines range.
- The Second Circuit remanded, concluding the record strongly suggests the district court either failed to determine eligibility or miscalculated the amended range, and that error was not harmless because the correct range would make Brooks’ 300-month term 90 months above the top of the range.
Issues
| Issue | Brooks' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court determined eligibility by calculating the amended Guidelines range under § 1B1.10(b)(1) | Court must calculate amended range (168–210) and consider reduction | District court has discretion to deny, and record shows it would have denied regardless | Court must first determine eligibility by calculating amended range; remand required where record is unclear |
| Whether district court miscalculated the amended Guidelines range | Brooks asserted amended range 168–210 (correct) | Govt and Probation (mistakenly) asserted 210–262; Govt did not dispute error but argued harmlessness | Record suggests miscalculation likely; error not harmless because sentence is 90 months above correct top of range |
| Whether the district court’s unexplained discretionary denial was harmless | Brooks argued court might have reduced sentence if aware of correct range | Govt argued error harmless because court clearly would have imposed same sentence | Remand because meaningful likelihood court would have reduced sentence given correct range; cannot assume harmlessness |
| Remedy on remand | N/A | N/A | District court must reconsider eligibility, calculate correct amended range, explain § 3553(a) analysis and either reaffirm or reduce sentence; if reaffirmed, appellant may restore appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for eligibility determination)
- United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for § 3582(c)(2) denial)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (court must begin by determining amended guideline range)
- United States v. Wilson, 716 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2013) (district court must calculate amended Guidelines range to assess eligibility)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural error includes failure to calculate or miscalculation of Guidelines)
- United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (harmless-error doctrine in sentencing context)
- United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994) (procedures for restoring appeal after district court action)