United States v. Hamilton
525 F. App'x 730
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hamilton pled guilty in 2006 to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and carrying firearms during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime; he was classified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
- PSR: criminal history category VI and total offense level 34, yielding a Guidelines range of 322 to 387 months (greater of the two career-offender calculations).
- District court sentenced Hamilton to 322 months and this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Hamilton later sought § 3582(c)(2) reductions under Amendment 706, which the district court denied, and we affirmed in a brief unpublished decision.
- After Amendment 750 altered drug-quantity tables, the district court still found Hamilton’s sentence based on career offender status, not the drug quantities, so Amendment 750 did not affect his offense level or the eligibility under § 3582(c)(2).
- The district court ultimately granted no relief under § 3582(c)(2) on the merits; this court remands for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the sentence was not based on a lowered sentencing range under § 3582(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce a career-offender sentence | Hamilton argues for a reduction due to amended guidelines. | The offense level and range were fixed by career-offender status and not subject to Amendment 750. | Lack of jurisdiction; remand to dismiss. |
| Effect of Amendment 750 on Hamilton's eligibility | Amendment 750 should reduce sentence. | Amendment 750 did not alter career-offender-based sentence. | Inapplicable to Hamilton's career-offender sentence. |
| Freeman applicability to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea context | Freeman supports § 3582(c)(2) relief where retroactive amendments apply. | Hamilton did not plead under Rule 11(c)(1)(C); Freeman inapplicable. | Inapplicable. |
| District court's basis for denial | District court relied on potential for relief under § 3582(c)(2). | Court lacked jurisdiction because relief not available for career-offender sentence. | Remand to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2013) (limits on court's ability to modify sentences after retroactive amendments)
- Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard for § 3582(c)(2) decisions)
- Sharkey v. United States, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (Amendment 706 had no effect on career-offender guidelines)
- United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) ( Amendment 750 retroactively altered drug-quantity tables)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (Supreme Court on Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea context not governing here)
- United States v. Trujeque, 100 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 1996) (jurisdictional boundary for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539 (10th Cir. 1997) (statutory and guidelines interpretation standards)