United States v. Howard
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10393
6th Cir.2011Background
- Howard pleaded guilty in 2004 to possession of crack cocaine; initial guideline range 60–71 months, with mandatory minimum for 5+ grams of crack.
- Howard failed to appear for sentencing, leading to obstructions of justice and a higher guideline range (97–121 months) after adjustments.
- District court imposed 97 months; Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence on appeal.
- Parties stipulated that Howard was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction due to retroactive crack-cocaine amendments, creating a new range of 78–97 months.
- A probation report and defense-focused submissions described Howard’s conduct in prison as mostly compliant, with some misconduct, and highlighted positive rehabilitation efforts.
- District court reduced Howard’s sentence to 88 months, using a form order with minimal explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether/no hearing required for § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Howard contends he was entitled to a hearing and allocution. | Howard argues the district court failed to provide due process or full consideration at a hearing. | No hearing required; allocution not mandated in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. |
| Adequacy of district court's explanation for reduction | Howard argues the form order lacks reasoning and reviewability. | Howard contends the court provided insufficient explanation for its discretionary decision. | Remand warranted for a statement of reasons explaining the discretion and factors considered. |
| One-to-one crack-to-powder ratio under Booker for § 3582(c)(2) | Howard invokes Booker to demand consideration of a one-to-one ratio. | Dillon bars Booker-based unreasonableness review in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. | Booker-based challenges are not cognizable; no error in applying § 3582(c)(2) without such ratio. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2009) (two-step § 3582(c)(2) inquiry: eligibility and then 3553(a) factors)
- Watkins v. United States, 625 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional and standard-of-review framework for § 3582(c)(2))
- Curry v. United States, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (cursory decision not fatal when record shows considered factors)
- Archer v. United States, 362 F. App'x 491 (6th Cir. 2010) (district court must indicate relevant § 3553(a) factors)
- Holland v. United States, 391 F. App'x 468 (6th Cir. 2010) (order can rely on referenced materials if factors are indicated)
- Dewitt v. United States, 385 F. App'x 479 (6th Cir. 2010) (reasoning can be based on documents and notes; need not be lengthy)
- Burrell v. United States, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (remand when the record does not reveal how discretion was exercised)
- Marion v. United States, 590 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2009) (some minimal explanation required for § 3582(c)(2) orders)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (remedial opinions do not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Bowers, 615 F.3d 715 (6th Cir. 2010) (Booker unreasonableness not cognizable in § 3582(c)(2) appeal)