United States v. Christopher Grant
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 920
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Grant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and sentenced in 2005 to 170 months in prison, mid-range of a 151–188 month guideline range.
- Amendment 706 in 2009 lowered the crack-cocaine Guidelines; at an evidentiary hearing the district court reduced Grant to 130 months, bottom of the amended range, reflecting rehabilitation and non-violent history.
- Subsequent amendments under the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) of 2010 further lowered the range to 110–137 months, prompting Grant to seek another reduction.
- In 2012, without an evidentiary hearing, the court reduced Grant to 123 months, the middle of the new range, and did not explain why this middle position was warranted.
- Grant appealed arguing the second amended sentence at the middle of the range was unjustified and that the court failed to provide the necessary explanation for the change from bottom to middle.
- The court vacated and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by not adequately explaining the second amended sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second § 3582(c)(2) sentence was justified and adequately explained | Grant argues the middle-range sentence lacks justification and proper explanation. | The government contends the sentence modification was permissible under § 3582(c)(2) and need not be re-explained if proportional to the initial sentence. | Vacate and remand for explanation of the second amended sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrell v. United States, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (requires meaningful explanation of § 3582(c)(2) reductions to permit appellate review)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 652 (Supreme Court 2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding)
- Marion v. United States, 590 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2009) (requires meaningful explanation of sentencing decisions under § 3582(c)(2))
- Clark v. United States, 563 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2009) (proportionality between initial and amended sentences supports § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- Winston v. United States, 611 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting requirement to show how sentence is warranted under case-specific circumstances)
- Statman v. United States, 604 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2010) (procedural sentencing errors may be reviewed for plain error if no objection was raised)
- Guarino v. United States, 517 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2008) (recognizes that contemporaneous objections preserve appellate review)