United States v. Denroy Gayle
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19046
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Berberena and Gayle moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after Amendment 750 reduced crack-related offense levels.
- Berberena originally received a 135-month sentence, later reduced to 135 months via a below-range variance.
- Gayle’s offenses yielded a 180-month total sentence after a 120-month below-range start and a 60-month mandatory consecutive term for § 924(c).
- The amended crack-range for Berberena became 135-168 months; for Gayle, 110-137 months plus 60-month consecutive term.
- The guideline policy statement at § 1B1.10(b)(2) was revised to prohibit reductions below the amended range, except for substantial-assistance reductions.
- Berberena’s and Gayle’s § 3582(c)(2) motions were denied (Berberena) or granted in part (Gayle) under the revised policy statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of § 1B1.10 limits | Government argued § 1B1.10 binding as a policy statement under § 3582(c)(2) and § 994(u). | Berberena and Gayle argued the Commission exceeded its authority by undoing variances/departures and creating binding limits. | § 1B1.10 binding; authority within framework valid |
| Separation of powers | Government contends delegation with intelligible principles complies with separation of powers. | Berberena and Gayle claim the policy statement encroaches on judicial/lawmaking powers. | No separation-of-powers violation; Congress validly delegated authority and kept courts accountable |
| APA notice-and-comment | Government argues policy statements are binding despite not being subject to APA notice-and-comment. | Defendants claim APA notice-and-comment was required for § 1B1.10 revision. | APA notice-and-comment not required for policy statements; revision valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 652 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) requires following the Commission’s policy statements)
- United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2009) (policy statements binding under § 3582(c)(2))
- Horn v. United States, 679 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2012) (non-delegation and binding retroactivity decisions; public process sufficiency)
- Anderson v. United States, 686 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2012) (limits on below-range reductions; authority of § 994(u))
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (statutory delegation for sentencing guidelines; intelligible principle)
- Garcia v. United States, 655 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2011) (separation of powers and delegation validation)
- Doe v. United States, 564 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2009) (binding policy statements under § 3582(c)(2))
- Fox v. United States, 631 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2011) (APA applicability to policy statements)