United States v. Chuck Collington
995 F.3d 347
| 4th Cir. | 2021Background
- Chuck Collington pleaded guilty in 2010 to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (5+ grams) in exchange for dismissal of related drug- and firearm-counts; the PSR attributed ~5,500 g crack and included a murder cross‑reference.
- At sentencing Collington waived PSR objections and received a 30‑year (360 months) prison term, agreed as a below‑Guidelines disposition.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) later reduced statutory penalties for crack offenses so that Collington’s offense would carry a 20‑year statutory maximum; those reforms initially were not retroactive.
- The First Step Act §404(b) (2018) made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive and allowed defendants to ask courts to “impose a reduced sentence as if” the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect when the offense was committed.
- In 2019 Collington moved under §404(b) to reduce his sentence to the current statutory maximum (240 months); the district court found him eligible but denied relief, citing offense seriousness and the plea agreement.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded: it held that a First Step Act court may not leave in place a sentence exceeding the retroactive statutory maximum and that First Step Act proceedings require procedural and substantive reasonableness (including adequate explanation and consideration of §3553(a)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may retain a pre‑FSA sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum made retroactive by the First Step Act | Collington: court must reduce sentence to at most the Fair Sentencing Act statutory maximum (20 yrs) | Government: court may decline to reduce a sentence that was legal when imposed; §404(b) leaves application of new ranges discretionary | Court: district court abused its discretion by letting stand a sentence above the retroactive statutory maximum; resentencing authority is constrained by the FSA ranges |
| Whether First Step Act §404(b) proceedings must be reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness | Collington: Yes—courts must apply reasonableness review and adequately explain decisions | Government: No—apply the more limited §3582(c)(2) framework without typical reasonableness requirements | Court: Yes—First Step Act decisions must be procedurally and substantively reasonable; courts must consider §3553(a) and explain their analysis |
| Whether §404(b) proceedings are limited like §3582(c)(2) sentence‑modification proceedings | Collington: §404(b) permits a broader resentencing analysis (not cabined like §3582(c)(2)) | Government: §404(b) should be treated similar to §3582(c)(2), i.e., limited relief | Court: §404(b) is broader—district courts must recalculate Guidelines, correct errors, consider §3553(a), and may depart consistent with statutory limits |
| Whether the district court here adequately explained its denial | Collington: explanation was insufficient given retention of a sentence above the new statutory max and Guidelines | Government: (generally defended district court discretion) | Court: vacated and remanded; district court’s terse reasoning was inadequate—on remand it must apply §3553(a) considerations and explain its decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. United States, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act §404(b) framework: broader resentencing authority than §3582(c)(2))
- Wirsing v. United States, 943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019) (history and purpose of First Step Act/Fair Sentencing Act; eligibility analysis)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (limits of §3582(c)(2) sentence‑modification proceedings)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (courts lack power to impose penalties not authorized by statute)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (retroactivity principles for sentencing statutes)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (district courts may consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation in imposing sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural requirement to adequately explain sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (procedural reasonableness and consideration of nonfrivolous §3553(a) arguments)