United States v. Jackson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9290
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jackson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (>5 g).
- He was classified as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1, producing a high offense level and VI criminal history.
- The district court delayed sentencing to await potential crack/powder cocaine reform, then sentenced him to 150 months, rejecting a career-offender-only approach.
- After sentencing, the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) tightened crack/powder disparities and the Sentencing Commission issued emergency amendments, later made retroactive (Amendment 750) and finally permanent (Amendment 759).
- Jackson appealed arguing he is entitled to remand for resentencing under the retroactive crack-cocaine guidelines; the government/dissent argued no remand because his sentence was based on the career-offender range.
- The Sixth Circuit remanded for the district court to consider applying retroactive crack-cocaine guidelines sua sponte under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive crack guidelines apply to a career-offender sentence | Jackson seeks remand for § 3582(c)(2) relief | Government argues no relief since career-offender range remains applicable | Remand permissible to consider retroactive guidelines under § 3582(c)(2) |
| Whether the original sentence was “based on” the crack guidelines | Sentence was influenced by crack/powder disparity concerns | Sentence governed by career-offender range | Sentence was based in part on crack guidelines; retroactive amendments may apply on remand |
| Whether a remand is proper when amendments would not lower the applicable range | N/A (Jackson seeks relief) | Remand inappropriate if range unchanged | Remand appropriate if retroactive amendment would alter applicable range; otherwise not |
| What procedure governs on remand after Freeman and related cases | Remand to consider § 3582(c)(2) relief | Limit to within the existing range | Remand to district court to consider retroactive guidelines sua sponte under § 3582(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Poole v. United States, 538 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2008) (two-step remand for § 3582(c)(2) relief when retroactive amendment lowers range)
- Simmons v. United States, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2009) (remand for § 3582(c)(2) consideration when amendment lowers range)
- Ursery v. United States, 109 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir. 1997) (remand for opportunity to pursue § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Wright, 428 F. App’x 608 (6th Cir. 2011) (summarizes remand mechanics in § 3582(c)(2) context)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (limits and clarifies relief under § 3582(c)(2) for plea-based sentences)