385 F. Supp. 3d 439
W.D. Pa.2019Background
- Dewayne Crews was convicted by jury in 2010 of possession with intent to distribute 50+ grams of crack cocaine and sentenced in December 2010 to 188 months imprisonment and five years supervised release.
- At sentencing the court found Crews a career offender, granted a downward departure in criminal history, and applied a one-to-one powder/crack ratio as a variance to avoid unwarranted disparities.
- The Third Circuit affirmed but noted the district court initially misapplied pre‑FSA statutory penalties (a procedural error the court deemed harmless). United States v. Crews was decided on appeal.
- Crews moved in 2019 under the First Step Act §404 to reduce his sentence "as if" the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) had been in effect when he committed the offense, seeking 165 months and four years supervised release (immediate release claimed).
- The government opposed, arguing Crews already had been sentenced in accordance with the FSA and that a plenary resentencing is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility under the First Step Act | Crews: court should apply FSA reductions retroactively so he is eligible | Government: Crews was already sentenced in accordance with FSA, so §404(c) bars relief | Court: Crews is eligible — his original sentence was not imposed "in accordance with" the FSA; First Step Act applies |
| Scope of resentencing (limited vs. plenary) | Crews: First Step Act permits full resentencing / "complete review" | Govt: §3582(c)(1)(B) and FSA do not authorize plenary resentencing | Court: Only a limited resentencing under §3582(c)(1)(B); must assess §3553(a) factors and apply FSA sections 2–3 as if effective at offense date |
| Whether to reduce imprisonment term | Crews: reduce imprisonment to 165 months (leading to immediate release) | Govt: court should decline reduction given original variance and sentencing rationale | Court: Denied — district court had imposed a non‑guideline variance (one‑to‑one ratio) not premised on pre/post‑FSA guidelines, so guideline change does not warrant reducing imprisonment |
| Whether to reduce supervised release term and defendant's presence at hearing | Crews: supervised release should be reduced to four years; requests appropriate process | Govt: opposes reductions and may argue procedural requirements | Court: Granted reduction of supervised release to four years (FSA lowered statutory minimum); defendant presence not required under Rule 43(b)(4) for §3582(c) proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (Sup. Ct.) (held Fair Sentencing Act applies to defendants sentenced after its enactment under certain circumstances)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on plenary resentencing under §3582(c)(2))
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (Guidelines usually form the basis for sentence; harmless‑error framework for guideline miscalculations)
- Langford v. United States, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.) (rare cases where district court disregards Guidelines such that guideline changes do not affect sentence)
- Jacobs v. United States, 919 F.2d 10 (3d Cir.) (statutory penalties in effect at time of offense generally apply at sentencing)