United States v. Horn
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9292
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Horn pled guilty in 2001 to bank robbery, sentenced as a career offender under §4B1.1 with a 188–235 month range; 2007 Amendment 709 changed how prior sentences are counted, potentially removing Horn's career offender status but was not made retroactive; Horn moved in 2008 for a §3582(c)(2) reduction arguing Amendment 709 retroactive; the district court granted a reduction; the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding retroactivity decisions control resentencing and Amendment 709 not retroactive; on remand the district court again applied Amendment 709 retroactively; the Sixth Circuit ultimately held (§3582(c)(2) retroactivity is binding via policy statements) and remanded to avoid retroactive application of Amendment 709; this opinion concludes the Commission’s retroactivity decision was proper and that Horn is not entitled to a retroactive amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to issue binding retroactivity policy statements | Horn II held Commission retroactivity policy binding | Commission can issue binding policy statements under §994(u) and §3582(c)(2) | Yes; retroactivity policy statements binding. |
| Constitutionality of the Commission's retroactivity power | Delegation violates nondelegation and separation of powers | Delegation is proper with intelligible principles and safeguards | Constitutional and proper delegation. |
| Whether the Commission's Amendment 709 retroactivity was arbitrary or capricious | Decision was arbitrary due to complexity and workload concerns | Considered factors Congress intended; not arbitrary | Not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Effect of policy statements versus guidelines on district courts under §3582(c)(2) | Policy statements are binding to control retroactivity | Policy statements binding even if not procedurally like guidelines | Policy statements binding; district courts must follow. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (retroactivity decisions control §3582(c)(2) eligibility; policy statements binding)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (establishes separation-of-powers framework for the Commission)
- Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991) (recognizes Commission power to decide retroactivity)
- United States v. Garcia, 655 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2011) (holds retroactivity policy statements binding in §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Smith, 459 Fed.Appx. 99 (3d Cir. 2012) (agrees that policy statements govern retroactivity)
- United States v. Horn, 612 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2010) (Horn II; district court lacked authority to resentence under Amendment 709)