United States v. Green
886 F.3d 1300
10th Cir.2018Background
- Marconia Green pleaded guilty (2011) to three counts of using a communication facility to facilitate acquisition of cocaine powder; district court calculated a guidelines range of 92–115 months but imposed an upward variance to 130 months based on extensive criminal history and lack of remorse.
- Green previously filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion invoking Sentencing Commission Amendment 782 (two-level drug-offense reduction); the district court denied relief and this Court affirmed.
- Green later filed a second pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion based on the same Amendment 782, adding more coursework certificates; the district court found Green eligible but denied a sentence reduction after considering § 3553(a) factors.
- Green appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a second motion under the same amendment and/or abused its discretion by failing to consider all circumstances (including in-prison conduct and coursework).
- The Tenth Circuit (panel) addressed: (1) whether § 3582(c)(2) bars successive motions as a jurisdictional limit; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a reduction on the merits (§ 3553(a) analysis).
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) bars successive motions based on the same Guidelines amendment (jurisdictional question) | District court retained jurisdiction to consider second § 3582(c)(2) motion; no clear congressional statement makes such a numerical limit jurisdictional | § 3582(c)(2) should be construed narrowly; § 3582(c) contains jurisdictional limits so successive motions should be barred | § 3582(c)(2) does not contain a jurisdictional bar to successive motions; no clear statement from Congress making a numeric limit jurisdictional |
| Whether district court abused its discretion under § 3582(c)(2) step two by denying a reduction after considering § 3553(a) | The district court failed to consider all facts (e.g., coursework, clean disciplinary record) and thus abused its discretion | District court properly weighed defendant’s extensive criminal history, deterrence, plea-related sentencing benefit, and found coursework insufficient to warrant reduction | No abuse of discretion; district court permissibly relied on criminal history, deterrence, and the plea deal to deny reduction |
| Whether appellate court may consider or remand for consideration of Green’s allegedly clean disciplinary record (new fact) | Court should remand so district court can consider Green’s clean disciplinary record | Green failed to present disciplinary record to district court; appellate review is confined to district-court record | Appellate court will not consider facts not presented below and declines remand because Green had an opportunity to present them initially |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (courts must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction and parties cannot waive jurisdictional defects)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (statutory limits are jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states so)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (distinguishes jurisdictional rules from mandatory claim-processing rules)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (clear-statement rule for jurisdictional characterization)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (clarifies jurisdictional analysis)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (procedural bars require a plain showing to be jurisdictional)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (two-step § 3582(c)(2) framework: eligibility, then discretionary § 3553(a) analysis)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (district court may deny § 3582(c)(2) relief where plea agreement produced a lower sentence)
- United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2012) (prior discussion of § 3582(c) as a jurisdictional limitation in context of Rule 35 incorporation)
- United States v. Spaulding, 802 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2015) (treatment of § 3582(c) as limiting district-court authority to listed situations)
- United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding § 3582(c)(2) does not impose jurisdictional bar on successive motions)
- United States v. Beard, 745 F.3d 288 (7th Cir. 2014) (same)
- United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2013) (same)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2012) (same)