United States v. Cassius, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1200

Alleyne holds that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be jury-found; court explains distinction between elements and sentencing factors.
Cassius was arrested in 2006 with crack cocaine, scales, and handgun; charged under 21 U.S.C. § 841; jury found 20.869 grams.
District court later resentenced after a § 2255 motion; the court found 450.462 grams and sentenced to 204 months for § 841 conviction, within a broader downward varied range.
Alleyne was decided after the evidentiary hearing, and Defendant objected that using a judge-found quantity to raise the Guidelines range violated Alleyne.
The district court did not alter the statutory sentence; it used the larger quantity only as a Guideline-range factor, not to modify the statutory minimum/maximum.
We affirm because multiple circuits permit higher quantity findings for Guidelines purposes so long as the sentence remains within the statutory range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether drug quantity is an element of § 841 and must be jury-found.	Cassius argues quantity is an element; judge-found quantity alters punishment.	Cassius contends Alleyne requires jury-found quantity to set any part of the sentence.	No error; district court used quantity only for Guidelines range within statutory limits.
Whether district court violated Alleyne by using judge-found quantity to enlarge the Guidelines range.	Cassius claims enhanced Guidelines range violates Alleyne.	State that enhancing Guidelines range within the statutorily prescribed limits is permissible.	Permissible; no alteration of statutory range occurred.
Whether the decision aligns with circuit precedent post-Alleyne.	Cassius contends conflict with Lake lineage.	Court cites Freeman, Ramírez-Negrón, Valdez, Johnson, and others supporting approach.	Aligned with sister circuits that allow judge-found quantity for Guidelines purposes if no minimum/maximum is altered.
Whether the record shows the district court relied on a mandatory minimum.	Cassius asserts court treated mandatory minimum as binding.	Record shows the court acknowledged only one count had a mandatory minimum; Alleyne discussed when minimums are increased.	No indication that minimum was increased; Alleyne not violated.

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be jury-found; district court may use judge-found facts for sentencing within range)
McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) (distinguishes elements from sentencing factors; premodern minimums)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing maximum sentence must be jury-found)
Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (upheld mandatory minimum scenario; later overruled by Alleyne for similar considerations)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (guidelines are advisory; judge discretion within range ok)
United States v. Freeman, 763 F.3d 322 (2014) (higher drug-quantity findings permissible for Guidelines range if sentence within statutory range)
United States v. Ramírez-Negrón, 751 F.3d 42 (2014) (quantity findings for Guidelines range not error if not changing statutory minimum)
United States v. Valdez, 739 F.3d 1052 (2014) (district court may use greater quantity for Guidelines range without violating Alleyne if no extra minimum)
United States v. Johnson, 732 F.3d 577 (2013) (Alleyne did not extend to facts that do not increase statutory penalties)
United States v. Lake, 530 F. App’x 831 (2013) (unpublished; precedential discussion referenced in opinion)