United States v. Damon Joiner
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17262
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Damon Joiner pled guilty in 2007 to distribution and possession with intent to distribute 129.77 grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B).
- At sentencing, a 240-month statutory minimum applied due to a prior felony drug conviction, exceeding his guideline range of 120–150 months.
- Joiner received a five-level downward departure for substantial assistance; the district court used a non-starting-point method to compute the departure, yielding 107 months.
- After the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) and Amendment 750, the crack guideline base levels and ranges were lowered, but the FSA’s non-retroactivity kept the 240-month minimum in Joiner’s case.
- Joiner sought a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction under Amendment 750, arguing his “applicable guideline range” was lowered; the district court denied the motion, and the Sixth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 750 lowers the applicable guideline range. | Joiner: applicable range is not reduced due to statutory minimum. | Joiner: Amendment 750 lowers range by § 2D1.1 changes that should apply. | Amendment 750 does not lower the applicable guideline range. |
| What constitutes the applicable guideline range for § 3582(c)(2) analysis. | Joiner asserts range excludes mandatory minimum. | Court should include statutory minimum as part of range. | Applicable range includes the statutory minimum when it exceeds the guidelines. |
| Does the statutory minimum act as the floor of the applicable range for sentence reduction purposes? | Minimums do not affect reduction eligibility. | Minimums set the floor for the applicable range. | The statutory minimum set the floor, so Amendment 750 did not lower Joiner’s range. |
| Does U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) permit a lower-than-amended-range sentence for substantial assistance under this framework? | Argument relies on broader construction. | Section 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) still allows reductions. | Yes, § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) remains applicable to reflect substantial assistance. |
| Are decisions from Wren, Liberse, or Savani controlling on whether a defendant’s minimum is part of the applicable range? | Savani supports excluding minimum. | Wren and Liberse align with including minimums in the applicable range. | Savani rejected; the Court’s reading aligns with including minimums when controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hameed, 614 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2010) (starting point for § 3553(e) departure is the mandatory minimum)
- United States v. Williams, 512 F. App’x 594 (6th Cir. 2013) (minimums within the amended range inform applicability)
- United States v. Wren, 706 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2013) (statutory minimums within original ranges affect reductions after Amendment 750)
- United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2012) (retroactivity discussions; minimums may affect reductions)
- United States v. Jones, 569 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2009) (range concept in guideline calculations; dissenting/concurring context)