United States v. Gregory Bell
2013 WL 4792344
6th Cir.2013Background
- In 2003 Gregory Bell pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 124.7g of crack, a § 924(c) firearms offense, and possession of marijuana; plea set base offense level 32, total offense level 29, Criminal History II.
- Guidelines range was 97–121 months, but a statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months (for the crack count) produced a sentencing range of 120–121 months. The district court sentenced Bell to 120 months for the crack count, 12 months concurrent for marijuana, and 60 months consecutive for the § 924(c) count (total 180 months).
- After the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) and subsequent Sentencing Commission amendments (Amends. 750 & 759), the probation office recalculated Bell’s Guidelines under the amendments to a range of 63–78 months for the crack count; the § 924(c) 60-month consecutive term would remain unchanged.
- Bell moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction to the amended Guidelines range; the district court denied relief, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because Bell was sentenced before the FSA’s effective date.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Bell’s sentencing range remained the 120-month mandatory minimum and thus was not ‘‘subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission’’ under § 3582(c)(2), relying on United States v. Hammond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bell is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on the FSA/Amendments | Bell: Dorsey means FSA amendments should apply to defendants seeking reductions after the FSA effective date, so he should be eligible | Gov't: Bell’s sentence was anchored to a statutory mandatory minimum that the Commission did not lower; § 3582(c)(2) therefore doesn’t authorize relief | Denied: Court held Bell’s sentencing range remained the 120‑month mandatory minimum, not ‘‘subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’’ so no § 3582(c)(2) authority to reduce the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hammond, 712 F.3d 333 (6th Cir.) (FSA did not make pre‑FSA mandatory minimums eligible for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (held FSA applies to defendants sentenced after the Act’s effective date)
- United States v. Reeves, 717 F.3d 647 (8th Cir.) (FSA not retroactively applicable via § 3582(c)(2) for pre‑Act sentences)
- United States v. Kelly, 716 F.3d 180 (5th Cir.) (Dorsey recognizes different results for pre‑ and post‑FSA sentencing)
- United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir.) (Dorsey’s exception limited to post‑FSA sentences)
- United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir.) (Congress did not indicate FSA mandatory minimums should apply to pre‑Act sentences)