United States v. Clark
675 F. App'x 95
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Eddie Lamont Clark was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and sentenced primarily to 144 months’ imprisonment pursuant to a plea agreement.
- At sentencing the district court used the 2009 Sentencing Guidelines and calculated a Guidelines range of 210–262 months, but imposed 144 months.
- Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced certain drug offense offense levels by two levels and was made retroactive, prompting Clark to move under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduced sentence.
- Using the amended Guidelines, the district court recalculated Clark’s range as 168–210 months; § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) prevents reducing a sentence below the minimum of the amended range except in limited circumstances.
- Clark sought reduction to 120 months (the statutory mandatory minimum), arguing § 1B1.10 did not bar relief and contending the post-sentencing revision of § 1B1.10 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion; the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding Clark was ineligible under § 1B1.10 and that the amendment did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after Amendment 782 | Clark: court should reduce his sentence to 120 months to reflect a comparably greater reduction than under amended Guidelines | Government: § 1B1.10 prohibits reducing a sentence below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range absent statutory exceptions | Held: Ineligible — § 1B1.10 bars reduction below amended-range minimum (168 months) so court correctly denied relief |
| Whether the post-sentencing revision to § 1B1.10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Clark: applying the revised § 1B1.10 to bar relief increases punishment and thus violates Ex Post Facto | Government: revision does not increase punishment risk; it governs eligibility for discretionary relief | Held: No Ex Post Facto violation — revision does not present a sufficient risk of increasing punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (standards for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2))
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) (Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits laws that retroactively increase punishment)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (a change in law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it creates a sufficient risk of increasing punishment)