United States v. Danny Lewis
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12132
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2012, Danny Lewis pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute; the district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 33–41 months (offense level 13 after acceptance, CHC VI) but imposed an upward-variance sentence of 120 months.
- At sentencing the court cited Lewis’s extensive criminal history and need for deterrence and protection of the public as reasons for the 120‑month term.
- Amendment 782 (2014) retroactively lowered most drug base offense levels by two levels; Lewis moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction.
- Lewis argued his total offense level should drop from 13 to 11 under the amendment; the district court issued a one‑paragraph denial, noting §1B1.10 permits but does not require a reduction, especially where the original sentence was an upward variance.
- The Eighth Circuit determined the correct amended offense level was 12 (not 11) and an amended range of 30–37 months, but held any procedural error in failing to calculate that range was harmless because the court would have imposed the same 120‑month sentence for the same reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range under USSG §1B1.10(b)(1) before denying relief | Lewis: court failed to compute amended range (argued level 11) and thus procedurally erred | Government: reduction is discretionary; court plainly relied on original sentencing reasons and denial was proper | Court: failure to calculate amended range was procedural error but harmless; denial affirmed |
| Correct amended offense level under Amendment 782 and credit for acceptance | Lewis: offense level becomes 11 | Government/Court: correct level is 12 because acceptance reduction is only two levels when base falls below 16 | Court: amended level is 12 (not 11) and amended range would be 30–37 months |
| Whether the district court’s terse explanation deprived Lewis of meaningful appellate review | Lewis: explanation inadequate to evaluate discretionary denial | Government: court referenced and incorporated detailed original sentencing findings | Court: incorporation of original sentencing rationale was sufficient; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (discusses procedure for §3582(c)(2) and stepwise reduction analysis)
- United States v. Freeman, 718 F.3d 1002 (harmless‑error review of §3582(c)(2) procedural mistakes)
- United States v. Clayton, 811 F.3d 918 (per curiam) (similar harmless‑error approach)
- United States v. Ortiz, 636 F.3d 389 (affirming sentence where court would have imposed same term despite procedural error)
- United States v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739 (affirming district court’s exercise of discretion in §3582 context)
- United States v. Grant, 703 F.3d 427 (discusses explanatory requirements for §3582 denials)
- United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961 (same)
- United States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722 (clarifies when brief explanation suffices for discretionary sentencing decisions)