United States v. Grant
636 F.3d 803
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Grant pled guilty to possession of a firearm, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and operation of a continuing criminal enterprise; district court imposed a 25-year mandatory minimum under § 848 and § 924(c) to run consecutively.
- PSR computed a guidelines range of 324–405 months with a 32-year suggested minimum, but government urged a 25-year minimum due to substantial cooperation and planned Rule 35(b) reduction.
- Rule 35(b) motion filed within one year of sentencing; district court initially denied objections to the PSR and sentenced Grant to 300 months (25 years).
- Government later moved for a Rule 35(b) reduction claiming substantial assistance; Grant joined and sought further reduction beyond 16 years.
- District court held a hearing and reduced Grant to 192 months (16 years), basing the reduction on substantial assistance; grant appealed challenging the scope of factors considered.
- Panel and en banc proceedings addressed whether § 3553(a) factors or other considerations could influence the Rule 35(b) reduction, and whether Booker/14 Dillon-type principles applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can §3553(a) factors be considered in Rule 35(b) reductions? | Grant argues yes; the amendments and Booker require §3553(a) consideration. | Government argues no; Rule 35(b) reductions are limited to the value of substantial assistance. | Rule 35(b) permits reductions for substantial assistance, not §3553(a) factors. |
| Did 2002 Rule 35(b) amendments and related history constrain or permit consideration of non-cooperation factors? | Grant contends amendments allow broader consideration. | Government contends amendments did not alter the core focus on substantial assistance. | Amendments are ambiguous, but the court treats Rule 35(b) as permitting reductions based on substantial assistance rather than §3553(a) factors. |
| Does Booker require 3553(a) factor consideration in Rule 35(b) resentencing? | Grant asserts Booker requires 3553(a) review at Rule 35(b). | ||
| Government argues Booker does not apply to Rule 35(b) proceedings or to post-sentencing reductions. | Booker and Dillon do not require §3553(a) factor re-application in Rule 35(b) proceedings. | ||
| Should the original Guidelines calculation be revisited at Rule 35(b) resentencing? | Grant argues original calculation may be revisited in light of Rule 35(b). | ||
| Government contends it remains untouched; reduction is governed by substantial assistance value. | Court affirms calculation of underlying guidelines range and holds Rule 35(b) reduction centers on assistance value. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moran, 325 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional aspects of § 3742(a) review of Rule 35(b) decisions)
- United States v. Chapman, 532 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2008) (methodology of evaluating Rule 35(b) motions and non-substantial factors)
- United States v. Doe, 351 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (jurisdiction and scope of Rule 35(b) and related interpretations)
- United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir. 1996) (Rule 35(b) analysis and substantial assistance framework)
- United States v. Bullard, 390 F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 2004) (limit of § 3553(a) factors in pre-sentencing departures)
- Dillon v. United States, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (Booker does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) reductions; analogizes to Rule 35)
- United States v. Poland, 562 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2009) (textual and intentional alignment of Rule 35(b) with § 3553(e))
- Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory regime and § 3553(a) considerations in sentencing)