United States v. Clarence Bonds, 839 F.3d 524

Background

Clarence Bonds pled guilty in 2009 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute an unspecified amount of cocaine base (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841). The dismissed superseding indictment had alleged ≥50 g and a 10-year mandatory minimum, but the conviction carried no mandatory minimum (§ 841(b)(1)(C)).
The PSR attributed 113.4 g of crack to Bonds (base offense level 30) and scored criminal history category VI (including a 1-point, and a 2-point § 4A1.1(e) increase), yielding a guideline range the court treated as 210–262 months; the court varied downward to 120 months and Bonds did not appeal.
Bonds filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion in 2015 based on retroactive Amendment 782 (lowering drug offense levels). The SMR mistakenly retained 113.4 g (instead of the 90 g the sentencing court attributed) and concluded Bonds was ineligible because he had received a statutory mandatory minimum and his amended range exceeded his sentence.
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, stating Bonds had been sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum (an erroneous factual/legal basis). Bonds appealed and raised, for the first time, that Amendment 782’s retroactivity should allow application of non-retroactive Amendment 742 (which would remove the § 4A1.1(e) two-point increase and reduce his criminal history from VI to V).
Under Amendment 782 (and correct 90 g quantity), Bonds’s amended total offense level would be 26; with criminal history VI his amended range would be 120–150 months (no reduction), but with history V (if Amendment 742 applied) his range would be 110–137 months (eligible for reduction).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on retroactive Amendment 782 permits courts to apply non-retroactive Amendment 742	Bonds: Amendment 782’s retroactivity and the "one book" rule (apply the Guidelines in effect on a date) allow applying Amendment 742 too, lowering his criminal history category	Gov: § 1B1.10 controls § 3582(c)(2) motions and lists only retroactive amendments; Amendment 742 is not listed and cannot be applied	Court: Held Amendment 742 cannot be applied; § 1B1.10 limits reductions to listed retroactive amendments, so Bonds not eligible under § 3582(c)(2)
Standard of review and forfeiture/prerequisites for plain-error review	Bonds: appellate review should consider his eligibility (raised on appeal)	Gov: Bonds failed to raise issues below so must show plain error	Court: Reviewed de novo the § 3582 eligibility question but required plain-error showing for unraised claims; errors below (quantity and mandatory-minimum finding) were obvious but not plain error warranting relief
Scope of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings — full resentencing?	Bonds: implied broader relief by invoking 2014 Guidelines Manual	Gov: § 3582(c)(2) is narrow, not a full resentencing; limited to amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d)	Court: § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full resentencing; must follow § 1B1.10 and substitute only listed amendments
Interaction of § 1B1.10 and § 1B1.11 ("one book" rule)	Bonds: § 1B1.11(b)(2) supports applying the entire Guidelines Manual in effect, including Amendment 742	Gov: § 1B1.10 is the specific controlling rule; reading § 1B1.11 to override it would render § 1B1.10 meaningless	Court: § 1B1.10 is controlling as the more specific rule; the one-book rule cannot be read to nullify § 1B1.10’s limits

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Dillon, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full resentencing)
United States v. Taylor, 815 F.3d 248 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) determinations)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.) (plain-error test for unpreserved issues)
United States v. Riley, 726 F.3d 756 (6th Cir.) (amendment must lower applicable guideline range to permit § 3582(c)(2) relief)
United States v. Horn, 679 F.3d 397 (6th Cir.) (policy statements in § 1B1.10 are binding on courts)