United States v. Gary Wyche
408 U.S. App. D.C. 229
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Wyche and Smith were convicted in 1989 in a D.C. drug-distribution conspiracy involving cocaine base ("crack"); both received life sentences and challenged quantity and enhancements on appeal.
- Wyche was initially held responsible for at least 500 grams of crack; remand led to a revised PSR estimating the conspiracy received ~907.2 g/week and a resentencing that preserved high-level enhancements and life sentence.
- Smith was found to be a principal lieutenant; at sentencing the court estimated ~4 kg/month during his participation and assigned a base offense level tied to 500+ grams, producing a life term (later partially reversed as to one count).
- The Sentencing Commission reduced crack guidelines in 2007 (retroactive) and again in 2011; both appellants moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for sentence reductions based on the later amendments.
- In 2008 the district court reduced Smith’s sentence under the 2007 amendment (apparently to a base level corresponding to 500 g–1.5 kg). In 2012 the district court denied both defendants’ motions, making independent quantity findings that each was responsible for more than 8.4 kg of crack and therefore ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed: it held a resentencing court may make independent quantity findings when needed, but such findings must not be inconsistent with prior factual determinations; the court found the 2012 quantity attributions to Wyche and Smith supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 3582(c)(2) resentencing court may make independent drug-quantity findings when the original sentence lacked a specific quantity determination | Wyche/Smith: post‑guideline amendment relief should be available; government cannot relitigate quantity beyond prior findings | Government: resentencing court may determine quantity necessary to compute amended Guidelines range | Resentencing courts may make independent quantity findings when required, but cannot make findings inconsistent with earlier sentencing determinations; reviewed for clear error (affirmed) |
| Whether the Government was precluded from contesting quantity because prior proceedings established only a 500‑gram minimum | Wyche: government cannot now contest quantity above 500 g because earlier proceeding established that minimum | Government: earlier finding of 500 g did not preclude showing a larger attributable quantity when needed to compute amended range | Rejected Wyche’s estoppel argument: government may contest higher quantity when earlier proceedings needed only a 500‑gram showing |
| Whether the 2012 district court’s finding that Wyche was responsible for >8.4 kg is supported by the record | Wyche: 2012 finding lacks factual/legal support and is inconsistent with earlier proceedings | Government: Revised PSR and trial record support attribution of entire conspiracy quantity during Wyche’s participation | Affirmed: Revised PSR and trial evidence support finding Wyche liable for >8.4 kg; thus no § 3582(c)(2) relief |
| Whether the 2012 court erred in attributing >8.4 kg to Smith despite a 2008 resentencing that adopted a lower quantity range | Smith: law-of-the-case / 2008 court’s implicit finding (base level 34) precludes later attribution of far greater quantity | Government: 2008 decision established only a 500 g–1.5 kg range; 2012 court could find larger quantity if supported | Affirmed: any law-of-the-case concern was harmless because the record supports attribution >8.4 kg; Smith not eligible for further reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (establishes limited two-step § 3582(c)(2) inquiry: compute amended range, then consider § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Kennedy, 722 F.3d 439 (D.C. Cir.) (resentencing under § 3582(c)(2) is not a plenary resentencing; prior factual determinations remain binding)
- United States v. Law, 528 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir.) (defendant may be held responsible for entire conspiracy quantity when crimes were reasonably foreseeable and defendant was a manager)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate review of factual findings is for clear error)
- United States v. Thomas, 114 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir.) (relevant-conduct rules for attributing conspiracy drug quantity; managerial role supports broader attribution)
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir.) (finding larger quantity at resentencing can be consistent with an earlier finding of a lesser minimum)