United States v. Franklin Thompson
825 F.3d 198
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Franklin Thompson and Lamar Gibson were designated career offenders under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and sentenced by the Western District of Pennsylvania; each received a sentence imposed within a Guidelines range calculated using the Drug Guidelines (§ 2D1.1) after the court departed/varied downward from the Career Offender range.
- Gibson was sentenced to 162 months (top of his Drug Guidelines range) after the court granted a downward departure from the Career Offender range; the government supported that departure.
- Thompson entered a plea agreement that calculated an agreed Guidelines range using the Drug Guidelines and the court imposed 151 months pursuant to that agreement (a variance from the Career Offender range).
- In 2011 the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 759, clarifying that a defendant’s “applicable guideline range” for § 1B1.10 is the pre-departure/pre-variance range (i.e., before departures/variances).
- In 2014 the Commission promulgated Amendment 782, retroactively lowering many drug offense base levels in § 2D1.1; appellants moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for sentence reductions based on Amendment 782.
- The district court denied relief because appellants’ pre-departure/pre-variance applicable guideline ranges were the Career Offender ranges (unchanged by Amendment 782); appellants appealed, challenging Amendment 759 as an ex post facto application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants’ sentences were “based on” the Drug Guidelines such that Amendment 782 applies under § 3582(c)(2) | Appellants: Sentences were imposed within Drug Guidelines ranges (after departure/variance), so they were "based on" those ranges | Government: Appellants were designated career offenders; sentences were thus based on Career Offender Guidelines | Held: Sentences were "based on" Drug Guidelines ranges (court followed Flemming II reasoning) |
| Whether a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is permitted when the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement defines “applicable guideline range” pre-departure/pre-variance (Amendment 759) | Appellants: Amendment 759 (which precludes reductions where pre-departure range is unchanged) is inapplicable or invalid as applied to them | Government: Amendment 759 validly defines "applicable guideline range," barring reductions because Career Offender ranges were unchanged by Amendment 782 | Held: Under § 1B1.10 as amended by 759, appellants are ineligible for reductions because their pre-departure ranges (Career Offender) were not lowered by Amendment 782 |
| Whether Amendment 759 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively denying benefit of Amendment 782 | Appellants: 759 retroactively denies an expected sentencing benefit and thus increases punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause | Government: 759 does not increase punishment; it simply enforces a policy about which baseline range governs eligibility for discretionary reductions | Held: Amendment 759 is not an ex post facto law; it did not retroactively increase punishment because Amendment 782 did not exist at the time of offenses and any denial was of a future discretionary benefit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flemming, 617 F.3d 252 (3d Cir.) (holding sentence can be "based on" non-career offender Guideline range when court departs/varies and sentences within that range)
- United States v. Flemming, 723 F.3d 407 (3d Cir.) (addressing § 1B1.10 policy-statement consistency requirement)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (Sup. Ct.) (ex post facto inquiry: whether retroactive change presents sufficient risk of increased punishment)
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (Sup. Ct.) (law in effect at time of offense that is later withdrawn can create ex post facto violation)
- Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (Sup. Ct.) (ex post facto principles and retroactive increase in punishment)