United States v. Holloway
956 F.3d 660
| 2d Cir. | 2020Background:
- Jason Holloway pled guilty in 2009 to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (about 66.33 g) and was sentenced as a career offender after a §851 information; he received 168 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised crack thresholds (e.g., from 50g to 280g for certain penalties), but was not retroactive to defendants already sentenced; the First Step Act §404 (2018) permits courts to reduce sentences "as if" the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect for covered offenses.
- Holloway moved under the First Step Act in 2019 seeking reductions to both his prison term and supervised release; the Probation Office and district court treated the motion under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. §1B1.10, denying relief because his Guidelines range remained unchanged due to career-offender status.
- Holloway was released from prison while his appeal was pending and remains on supervised release; the district court had not addressed supervised release reduction.
- The Second Circuit held that Holloway is eligible for consideration under the First Step Act because the statutory penalties for his sentenced offense were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, that §3582(c)(1)(B) (not §3582(c)(2)) governs First Step Act motions, and thus U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 does not bar eligibility; the denial was vacated and remanded for consideration of supervised release.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot after Holloway's release | Holloway: not moot because supervised release remains and relief could be granted there | Govt: release moots claim for prison reduction (but not supervised release) | Not moot in full — supervised-release claim remains live |
| Whether Holloway is eligible under the First Step Act | Holloway: eligible because he was sentenced for an offense whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act | Govt: argued defendant’s Guidelines range unchanged so ineligible (treating motion under §3582(c)(2)) | Eligible: statutory text requires only that the court previously imposed a sentence for a covered offense |
| Proper statutory vehicle for First Step Act reductions | Holloway: First Step Act motion is statutory relief so governed by §3582(c)(1)(B) | Govt/district court: treated motion under §3582(c)(2) and bound by U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 | §3582(c)(1)(B) governs; §1B1.10 does not limit eligibility under the Act |
| Whether supervised release may be reduced under the Act | Holloway: First Step Act authorizes reduction of the entire sentence, which includes supervised release | Govt: conceded supervised-release minimum changed and remand appropriate | Supervised release is part of the sentence; district court may consider reducing it on remand (discretionary) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dorsey, 567 U.S. 260 (U.S. 2012) (Fair Sentencing Act prospective at sentencing)
- Mont v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1826 (U.S. 2019) (supervised release is punishment and part of the sentence)
- United States v. Barresi, 361 F.3d 666 (2d Cir. 2004) (district court may consider hypothetical sentence reductions when adjusting supervised release)
- United States v. Blackburn, 461 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2006) (challenge to sentence after release may remain justiciable if supervised release relief is possible)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discretionary sentence reductions)
- United States v. Brooks, 891 F.3d 432 (2d Cir. 2018) (de novo review where eligibility turns on statutory interpretation)
- United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act eligibility turns on offense of conviction)
- United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2009) (district courts bound by U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 when using §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2001) (drug-quantity allegations and charging practices affecting sentencing)
- Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1992) (effectual relief standard for mootness)
- United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act motions governed by statutory criteria)
- United States v. Beamus, 943 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2019) (same conclusion on governing statute)