United States v. Hodge
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15826
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hodge pleaded guilty in 2005 to distributing ~23.2 grams of crack cocaine and, because of multiple prior felonies, was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 to 188 months (within a 188–235 mo. range).
- He filed multiple § 3582(c)(2) motions seeking sentence reductions tied to amendments and statutory changes affecting crack-cocaine guidelines (Amendments 706, 709, 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act).
- Earlier motions based on Amendments 706 and 709 were denied (and those denials were affirmed on appeal); the present motion (filed Nov. 28, 2011) relied on Amendment 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA).
- Amendment 750 reduced guideline offense levels for crack offenses; Hodge argued it should lower his career-offender base level (from 34 to 32) and that the FSA lowered the statutory maximum applicable to him.
- The district court denied relief: Amendment 750 did not affect a sentence driven by the career-offender guideline, and the FSA is not retroactive to pre‑effective-date sentences. Hodge appealed; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 750 authorizes a § 3582(c)(2) reduction for a career offender sentenced under § 4B1.1 | Amendment 750 lowered crack offense levels and thus should reduce Hodge's guideline range | Hodge was sentenced under the career-offender guideline; crack-guideline amendments do not affect career-offender ranges | Denied — career-offender sentence unaffected by Amendment 750; § 3582(c)(2) relief not authorized |
| Whether the Fair Sentencing Act provides a basis for resentencing | FSA reduced statutory maximum for Hodge's offense, which should lower his guideline base level retroactively | FSA is not retroactive to defendants sentenced before its effective date; § 3582(c)(2) permits only certain reductions | Denied — FSA does not independently authorize § 3582 relief and is not retroactive |
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) proceedings create a due-process liberty interest | Hodge contends policy barring career offenders from benefit of retroactive crack amendments violates due process | § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are discretionary and do not implicate a constitutionally protected liberty interest | Denied — no due-process violation; resentencing under § 3582(c)(2) is not constitutionally required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir.) (career-offender ranges not affected by crack-guideline reductions)
- United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denials)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (FSA not retroactive to those sentenced before its effective date)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings are discretionary and do not create a liberty interest)
- United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir.) (apply statutory penalties in effect at original sentencing in § 3582 proceedings)
- United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir.) (FSA does not itself provide an independent basis for § 3582 relief)