United States v. Charles Cannon
692 F. App'x 228
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Charles Cannon was convicted of a cocaine offense (statutory max life) and a firearm offense (statutory max 120 months); the district court originally imposed a split sentence of 256 months (cocaine) + 72 months (firearm) to run consecutively for a 328-month total, which fell near the midpoint of his original Guidelines range (292–365 months).
- The Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782, which retroactively lowered Cannon’s drug guideline range to 235–293 months; Cannon moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction.
- The probation office recommended reducing the cocaine term to 235 months (the low end of the amended range) and leaving the consecutive 72-month firearm term in place, producing a 307-month total; the district court adopted that recommendation and checked the box on Form AO 247 stating the reduced sentence was "within the amended guideline range."
- Cannon challenged the modification: a 235 + 72 consecutive structure yields a 307-month total, which exceeds the amended range’s high end (293 months), yet the court labeled the reduction as within-range; he argued the court erred and that the court could instead run sentences concurrently to produce a total within the amended range.
- The district court relied on USSG § 1B1.10 policy constraints (must substitute only the amended provisions and "leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected," and cannot reduce any "term of imprisonment" below the amended range), but the court did not explain why it both left the 72-month consecutive term in place and described the reduction as within-range.
Issues
| Issue | Cannon's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by reducing the cocaine term to 235 months but leaving the consecutive 72‑month firearm term, producing a 307‑month total that exceeds the amended guideline range, while saying the reduction was within the amended range | The reduced total (307 months) exceeds the amended range; the court mischaracterized its reduction and should have produced a total within 235–293 months (e.g., by making sentences concurrent) | The district court may lawfully impose an above‑guideline total and its original discretionary choice to run sentences consecutively should not be revisited | The court reversed and remanded: the district court abused its discretion by failing to reconcile its labeling of the reduction as within-range and by providing no reasoning for imposing an above-range total; remand required for clarification or resentencing adjustments |
| Whether the original decision to impose consecutive sentences is a fixed "guideline application decision" that § 1B1.10(b)(1) forbids revisiting when calculating the amended range | Cannon: § 1B1.10(b)(1) requires leaving all prior guideline application decisions unchanged, so the court could not keep the 72-month consecutive term if that prevents a within-range total | Government: The district court’s original, permissible decision to impose consecutive sentences cannot be relitigated on a § 3582(c)(2) motion | Held: The court concluded the original choice to impose consecutive sentences was not a "guideline application decision" (it was effectively a departure from the Guidelines), so the district court may, on remand, convert to concurrent sentences if necessary to reach a within-range total |
| How to interpret USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)’s restriction that a court may not reduce any "term of imprisonment" below the amended guideline range when multiple counts and consecutive sentences exist | Cannon: The policy bars reducing any individual term below the amended range, but concurrent running could still yield a total within the range without reducing the cocaine term below the amended minimum | Government: The 72‑month firearm term may be left unchanged; district court discretion remains broad | Held: The court declined to resolve all statutory ambiguities; it assumed (without deciding) that each sentence is a separate "term of imprisonment" for § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), and instructed the district court on remand either to (a) impose a within-range total (potentially by making sentences concurrent) or (b) if it keeps an above-range total, to check the correct Form AO 247 box and explain its reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) motions are limited "modifications," not plenary resentencings)
- United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) sentence modifications)
- United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010) (statutory authorization and consistency with Sentencing Commission policy statements required for sentence reduction)