United States v. Eric Harris
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17866
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Harris sentenced to 110 months for distribution of cocaine base under § 841(a)(1).
- PSR classified Harris as a career offender under § 4B1.1, resulting in a 29 total offense level and VI criminal history, with a Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
- District court downwardly variance sentenced Harris below the range, citing redeemability.
- Harris moved for § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 750; motion denied because amendment did not lower the career-offender range.
- Harris argues under Freeman that career-offender cases can be adjusted; he also challenges Amendment 759’s validity under APA and § 994(u).
- The panel affirms the district court’s denial of relief, rejecting Harris’s theories and upholding Amendment 759 as valid and within Commission’s authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) allows a reduction for a career offender. | Harris (Harris) contends the district court may reduce under § 3582(c)(2). | Responding court holds career-offender range governs § 3582(c)(2) even after downward variance. | No: career-offender range governs § 3582(c)(2) relief; amendment does not lower that range. |
| Whether Freeman overrides prior precedent for career offenders. | Harris relies on Freeman to permit § 3582(c)(2) relief. | Court distinguishes Freeman; Freeman does not apply to Harris's career-offender status. | Freeman does not alter existing rule that career-offender range governs eligibility. |
| Whether Amendment 759 is valid under the APA and § 994(u), and its separation-of-powers implications. | Amendment 759 is invalid under APA and exceeds § 994(u); concerns separation of powers. | Amendment 759 is valid; policy statements under 1B1.10 are constitutionally permissible. | Amendment 759 valid under APA and § 994(u); no separation-of-powers violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackmon v. United States, 584 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2009) (career-offender range governs § 3582(c)(2) relief when sentenced under § 4B1.1)
- Tolliver v. United States, 570 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2009) (supports that pre- vs post-departure ranges affect § 3582(c)(2) inquiry)
- Rivera v. United States, 662 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (discusses career-offender vs drug-guideline ranges post-amendments)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (whether a plea-based sentence is subject to § 3582(c)(2) relief when guidelines apply)
- Fox v. United States, 631 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2011) (APA and policy statements; 1B1.10 applicability)
- Horn v. United States, 679 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholds constitutionality of § 1B1.10 policy statements)
- McGee v. United States, 615 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2010) (rejection of McGee-style flaws in § 1B1.10 authority)
- Glover v. United States, 2012 WL 2814303 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (discusses Amendment 750/§ 1B1.10 applicability to career offenders)