United States v. Darrell Green, 764 F.3d 1352

Green was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
At sentencing the district court held Green accountable for approximately 32.1 kilograms of cocaine base, yielding a base offense level of 38.
Amendment 750 retroactively lowered certain base-offense levels; Green sought reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The district court denied reductions, concluding the amended guidelines did not lower Green’s range.
On appeal, Green argued Sixth Amendment Apprendi violations and that law-of-the-case limited district court findings in a § 3582(c)(2) motion.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Green’s motion for a reduced sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s drug-quantity findings can be deferred to on §3582(c)(2).	Green argues the findings violate Apprendi and cannot be deferred.	Green contends the district court’s findings were improper under Sixth Amendment constraints.	Yes; the court may defer to district court findings on reduced-sentence motion.
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred clarifying Green’s drug quantity.	Green asserts prior statement bound the district court.	The prior appellate remark did not bind the district court’s clarifying findings.	Law-of-the-case did not bar the district court’s clarification.
Whether Amendment 750 lowered Green’s guidelines range to confer eligibility for a reduction.	Green contends the amendment reduced his base-offense level.	The district court found no effect on Green’s guideline range.	Amendment 750 did not change Green’s guideline range in his case.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (right to jury trial for facts increasing punishment applies to drug-quantity findings)
United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2000) (no de novo resentencing; focus on amended range and original sentence)
United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328 (11th Cir. 2013) (retroactive amendment can lower guideline range; district court may revisit quantities consistently with original findings)
United States v. Wyche, 741 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (permissible independent quantity findings when necessary for amended range)
United States v. Anderson, 707 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2013) (permitted district court to determine drug quantity for amended range in § 3582(c)(2))
United States v. Hall, 600 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2010) (same principle in quantity findings for amended range)
United States v. Moore, 582 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2009) (recognizes need for additional fact-finding in § 3582(c)(2) cases)