United States v. Geary Waters, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21637
9th Cir.2014Background
- Geary W. Waters was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 for a crack-cocaine offense; the district court considered the § 2D1.1 drug-quantity table but found career-offender status determinative.
- Waters moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 759, which made prior reductions to the crack-cocaine guidelines permanent and retroactive.
- The district court dismissed Waters’s § 3582(c)(2) motion; Waters appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.
- Waters argued (1) he was eligible for a reduction under Amendment 759 and (2) the 2011 amendment to Application Note 6 of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (which requires using the policy statement version in effect on the date of reduction) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by restricting courts’ discretion to grant reductions.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify the final sentence and addressed both eligibility and ex post facto claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Waters is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief under Amendment 759 | Amendment 759 revised the crack-cocaine guidelines and should entitle Waters to a reduced range | Waters contends eligibility; the government argues career-offender status controls | Not eligible: Waters’s career-offender designation made Amendment 759 irrelevant to his applicable guideline range (affirming prior panel conclusion) |
| Whether 2011 amendment to Application Note 6 of § 1B1.10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Amendment 6’s requirement to use the policy statement in effect on the reduction date retroactively disadvantages Waters by preventing a lower sentence | Amendment 6 merely restricts district-court discretion but does not increase the punishment imposed at sentencing | No Ex Post Facto violation: applying the amended policy does not increase the punishment beyond the sentence originally imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for § 3582(c)(2) relief and effect of guideline amendments)
- United States v. Waters, 648 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2011) (prior Waters appeal; career-offender determination affirmed)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (U.S. 2013) (ex post facto analysis requires a sufficient risk of increasing punishment)
- United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (applying post‑Amendment § 1B1.10 did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause)
- United States v. Johns, 5 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir. 1993) (test for ex post facto violation: retroactivity plus disadvantage to defendant)