United States v. Carlton Easter
502 F. App'x 152
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Easter was convicted in 2008 by jury of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams+ crack cocaine and conspiracy to distribute 50 grams+ crack cocaine.
- The district court found Easter responsible for 343 grams of crack cocaine.
- Under the 2008 guidelines, Easter had a base offense level of 32, plus a two-level weapon enhancement, totaling level 34, with criminal history category IV.
- His Guidelines range was 210 to 262 months, and he was sentenced to 210 months.
- Amendment 750 (effective Nov. 1, 2011) changed crack cocaine quantities retroactively, but the district court and probation determined it had no effect on Easter’s offense level or range, and Easter filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion in 2011 seeking a reduction, which the district court denied.
- Counsel for Easter moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, and Easter declined to file a pro se brief; this court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the district court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 750 lowered Easter’s Guidelines range. | Easter (via counsel) argues Amendment 750 lowers his range. | The government/record shows no change to Easter’s range. | Amendment 750 had no effect on Easter’s range. |
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) permits relief when the retroactive amendment does not lower the range. | If Amendment 750 lowered the range, relief would be merited. | § 3582(c)(2) requires a lowered range to grant relief; otherwise no relief. | § 3582(c)(2) relief denied because Amendment 750 did not lower the range. |
| Whether Easter may challenge the district court’s drug-quantity finding under § 3582(c)(2). | Easter relied on the retroactive amendment to obtain relief. | § 3582(c)(2) does not permit challenging the quantity finding; only the effect on the range matters. | Court barred challenge to drug quantity; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (two-step Anders inquiry and nonfrivolous-issue review)
- United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2009) (retroactivity and effect on Guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2))
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding)