United States v. Charles Washpun, 17-1011

In 1998 Washpun was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine/cocaine base. He was sentenced to 300 months based on a finding that he was responsible for at least 1.5 kg which yielded offense level 38 under the then-applicable Guidelines.
Amendment 782 (2014) raised the cocaine-base quantity required for offense level 38 to 25.2 kg, prompting Washpun to move for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The probation office and both counsel initially treated Washpun as responsible for at least 66 kg; the district court denied relief. The Sixth Circuit remanded because the court had improperly rejected a letter from Washpun objecting to his attorney’s agreement with the report.
On remand the district court reexamined trial testimony (primarily from coconspirator Keylen Blackmon and other witnesses) and made conservative weekly-quantity approximations for two periods: Dec 1991–Jan 1993 (61 weeks) and late 1995–June 1997 (78 weeks).
Using minimum figures from trial testimony (9 oz/week for 61 weeks = 15.56 kg; 9 oz/week for 78 weeks = 19.90 kg, half attributed to Washpun = 9.95 kg), the court found Washpun responsible for at least 25.51 kg total—above the 25.2 kg threshold—so he was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court’s factual quantity finding was supported by competent evidence and not clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Washpun is eligible for a §3582(c)(2) sentence reduction under Amendment 782 based on drug-quantity attributable to him	Washpun: record does not establish he was responsible for more than 25.2 kg of cocaine base; therefore he should be eligible for a reduction	Government/District Court: trial testimony and conservative approximations show Washpun was responsible for at least 25.51 kg, so Amendment 782 does not lower his sentencing range	Court affirmed: competent record evidence supports the finding of >25.2 kg; denial of §3582(c)(2) relief upheld

Moore v. United States, 582 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for §3582(c)(2) motions)
Johnson v. United States, 732 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2013) (drug-quantity findings are factual and reviewed for clear error)
Valentine v. United States, 694 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012) (modification court must examine original record and may make supplemental findings)
Hernandez v. United States, 227 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2000) (coconspirator testimony can support drug-quantity attribution)
Mahaffey v. United States, 53 F.3d 128 (6th Cir. 1995) (approximations of drug quantity permissible if supported by competent evidence)
Pruitt v. United States, 156 F.3d 638 (6th Cir. 1998) (use of coconspirator testimony to attribute drug quantities)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two-step framework for §3582(c)(2) sentence modifications)
Walton v. United States, 908 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir. 1990) (drug-quantity findings are factual and binding on appeal unless clearly erroneous)