United States v. Holcomb
853 F.3d 1098
10th Cir.2017Background
- Holcomb, sentenced in 2002 for crimes committed in 2000, sought a sentence reduction in 2014 under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), which permits reductions when the Sentencing Commission lowers the applicable guideline range.
- The Sentencing Commission amended § 1B1.10 in 2011 to tighten eligibility for sentence reductions; under the 2011/2014 version Holcomb was ineligible, whereas under the pre-2011 version he would have been eligible.
- The district court applied the 2014 version and denied Holcomb relief; Holcomb appealed claiming Ex Post Facto violation, ultra vires action by the Commission, and unlawful usurpation of judicial sentencing authority.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the statutory and constitutional challenges de novo and relied on circuit and other federal precedent addressing § 1B1.10.
- The court rejected Holcomb’s challenges, holding (1) no Ex Post Facto violation, (2) the Commission acted within Congress’s delegation when adopting § 1B1.10, and (3) the Commission did not usurp judicial authority; the district court’s denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Holcomb's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying the amended § 1B1.10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Ex post facto requires using the guideline in effect when the crime occurred (2000) | Amendment does not increase punishment; it only narrows courts’ discretion to reduce sentences | No Ex Post Facto violation; precedent controls (Kurtz) |
| Whether the Sentencing Commission exceeded statutory authority by enacting § 1B1.10 | The Commission unlawfully removed or limited Holcomb’s prior downward variance and exceeded 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) | Congress delegated authority to the Commission to specify when and by how much sentences may be reduced after guideline changes | § 1B1.10 is authorized by statute; it limits future reductions but does not take away past variances |
| Whether § 1B1.10 usurps the judiciary’s sentencing authority | The Commission improperly assumed judicial sentencing discretion | Congress may curtail judicial discretion and delegated rulemaking authority to the Commission; § 1B1.10 follows that delegation | No usurpation; Commission acted pursuant to congressional delegation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir.) (holding § 1B1.10 does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 342 (1991) (upholding Commission authority to promulgate rules concerning sentence reductions)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (Congress may delegate authority that limits judicial sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Diggs, 768 F.3d 643 (7th Cir.) (holding § 1B1.10 is authorized and does not retroactively take away prior variances)
- United States v. Berberena, 694 F.3d 514 (3d Cir.) (holding § 1B1.10 limits new downward variances in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings rather than undoing prior departures)
- United States v. Womack, 833 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir.) (rejecting Ex Post Facto challenge to narrowed post‑amendment reduction discretion)