United States v. Dewar
706 F. App'x 36
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Dewar is serving a 300-month term for drug and firearms offenses in the SDNY.
- At sentencing, narcotics guidelines were 210–262 months, but a 20-year mandatory minimum applied due to a prior felony drug conviction, yielding 240–262 months.
- Dewar was sentenced to 240 months for the narcotics count with the firearms count running concurrently; the district court noted the same sentence would be imposed without the mandatory minimum.
- We later directed resentencing for the firearms count to reflect Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010), and at resentencing Dewar’s narcotics guideline range remained, with the 240-month term under the guidelines.
- We held in 2015 that the narcotics sentence was based on guidelines, not the mandatory minimum, and that Amendment 782 lowered the relevant guidelines for the drug quantity table.
- The district court denied § 3582(c)(2) relief on its own motion; the district court has discretion to determine whether a reduction is warranted on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Dewar eligible for §3582(c)(2) relief due to Amendment 782? | Dewar argues eligibility since the narcotics sentence was based on a guidelines range lowered by Amendment 782. | District court concluded ineligibility because a mandatory minimum applied to the narcotics count and was not lowered by amendment. | Dewar is eligible; remand for potential reduction. |
| Did the district court err by treating the entire sentence as ineligible because part was based on a mandatory minimum? | Dewar contends the reduction should apply to the guidelines-based portion, not the mandatory minimum. | District court treated the sentence as governed by the mandatory minimum for §3582(c)(2) purposes. | Remand to determine if a reduction is warranted under the circumstances. |
| What is the proper standard on remand for §3582(c)(2) reductions? | Dewar relies on the possibility of a reduction under the guideline-lowered range. | District court retains discretion to decide whether and how much to reduce. | Court remands; district court has discretion to determine if and extent of reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (determines de novo eligibility for §3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Johnson, 732 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (mandatory minimum blocks §3582 relief when not lowered)
- United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2009) (mandatory minimums vs guideline reductions framework)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (remand methodological guidance for §3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (remand and discretion in review of sentences)
- Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010) (requires consecutive 5-year sentence for §924(c))
- United States v. Dewar, 624 F. App’x 59 (2d Cir. 2015) (reaffirmed guideline-based narcotics sentence on remand)
- United States v. Dewar, 375 F. App’x 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (harmless error ruling re prior conviction at initial sentencing)