United States v. David Wright
428 F. App'x 608
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wright pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack-cocaine and using/ carrying a firearm in relation to a drug crime; sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1 with a range of 151–188 months for count one and 60 months mandatory for count two, total 123 months after a 63-month count-one sentence and 60-month count-two sentence.
- The PSR set offense level 32 for count one due to career offender status, then reduced for acceptance of responsibility to total offense level 29 and criminal history VI, yielding 151–188 months for count one; count two was 60 months consecutive.
- The district court varied below the career-offender range for count one, issuing 63 months on count one and 60 months consecutive on count two, total 123 months.
- Wright later sought § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 706/711/713 lowering crack-cocaine guidelines; district court denied, applying binding precedent that Amendment 706 does not help those sentenced as career offenders.
- This appeal addresses whether Amendment 706 can aid career-offender defendants and whether the district court correctly treated Wright’s applicable guideline range for § 3582(c)(2) purposes; the court ultimately affirms the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 706 provides relief for career offenders under §3582(c)(2). | Wright argues Amendment 706 lowers his applicable range despite career-offender status. | Government contends career-offender status prevents Amendment 706 relief. | Amendment 706 provides no relief when the applicable range is the career-offender range. |
| What is the applicable guideline range for Wright for §1B1.10 purposes—career-offender vs crack-cocaine range? | Wright asserts the lower crack-cocaine range should control because of the district court’s downward variance. | Government argues Wright’s applicable range is the career-offender range prior to any variance. | The applicable range is Wright’s career-offender range, not the crack-cocaine range, for §1B1.10 purposes. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by not applying Booker/3553(a) factors in the §3582(c)(2) proceeding? | Wright claims due process requires consideration of §3553(a) factors. | Dillon forecloses Booker arguments in §3582(c)(2) proceedings; first determine §1B1.10 consistency, then consider §3553(a). | Dillon forecloses Booker/3553(a) consideration in §3582(c)(2) proceedings at the initial step. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010) (applicable guideline range depends on pre-departure range; Amendment 706 may not lower it)
- United States v. Hameed, 614 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2010) (Amendment 706 relief not available when career-offender range applies)
- United States v. Maxwell, 391 F. App’x 446 (6th Cir. 2010) (discusses §1B1.10 and career-offender considerations)
- United States v. Watkins, 625 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 2010) (construes §3582(c)(2) in light of §1B1.10)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (Booker does not apply to §3582(c)(2) proceedings; must first check §1B1.10)
- United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (cases addressing §3582(c)(2) governing standards)