United States v. Ford
699 F. App'x 812
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Detrick Laron Ford pled guilty in 2002 to possession with intent to distribute PCP; plea stipulated 10–30 kg PCP (base offense level 36 under the 2002 Guidelines).
- At sentencing the court applied a +2 firearm enhancement and -3 acceptance reduction, resulting in offense level 35 and Guidelines range 292–365 months; Ford received 292 months.
- Ford, a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1, had a career-offender base level 34 (reduced to 31 after acceptance), but the higher drug-quantity–based level (35) controlled the original sentence.
- Ford obtained a prior §3582(c)(2) reduction in 2008 (Amendment 706) to 235 months. A 2012 motion under Amendment 750 was denied.
- In 2015 Ford moved under Amendment 782; the district court denied the motion, but misstated that the 2008 reduction had been calculated under the career-offender guideline.
- The Tenth Circuit found Amendment 782 does not lower Ford’s applicable Guidelines range (235–293 months) because the drug-quantity adjusted level (33 after Amendment 782 adjustments) remains above the career-offender level (31); thus Ford is ineligible for a §3582(c)(2) reduction and the denial should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 782 reduces Ford's applicable Guidelines range and thus makes him eligible for a §3582(c)(2) reduction | Ford: Applying Amendment 782 to the drug-quantity base would lower his range to 188–235 months | Government: Even after Amendment 782 the applicable range is 235–293 months; Ford's current sentence is already at the bottom of that range | Held: Amendment 782 does not lower the applicable range; Ford is ineligible for §3582(c)(2) relief |
| Whether the district court’s misstatement about reliance on the career-offender guideline was reversible error | Ford: Court mischaracterized prior reduction and should have reduced sentence | Government: Misstatement harmless because the amended range is unchanged and sentence unaffected | Held: Misstatement was harmless; error did not affect substantial rights |
| Proper procedural disposition when §3582(c)(2) provides no jurisdiction | Ford: Requested merits consideration | Government: §3582(c)(2) inapplicable if amendment does not lower applicable range | Held: District court should have dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction rather than deny on the merits |
| How to calculate amended guideline range under §1B1.10 when defendant is a career offender | Ford: Amend §2D1.1 then compare with §4B1.1 outcome | Government: Same approach; substitute only amendment per §1B1.10(b)(1) and compare | Held: Apply Amendment 782 to §2D1.1, compute adjusted offense level (33), compare to career-offender level (31); higher level (33) controls, producing 235–293 months |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (explaining two-step §3582(c)(2) inquiry and §1B1.10 application)
- United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for §3582(c)(2) denials)
- United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (amendment does not permit reduction when defendant's applicable range is unchanged)
- United States v. Ollson, 413 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2005) (harmless sentencing error analysis under Rule 52(a))
- United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when §3582(c)(2) inapplicable)
- United States v. Darton, 595 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2010) (career-offender guideline comparison instructions)
- United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2016) (context on Amendment 782 effects)