United States v. Jason Beckham, 838 F.3d 731

Jason Beckham pleaded guilty in 2009 to federal drug conspiracy charges; at sentencing his adjusted offense level was 30 and criminal-history category VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 168–210 months.
The district court granted a downward criminal-history departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, reducing Beckham’s CHC to IV and imposing a 135-month sentence.
In 2014 the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered most drug-base offense levels; Beckham moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction.
Amendment 759 (2011) to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 instructs that the “applicable guideline range” is calculated before any departures and bars reducing a sentence below the minimum of the amended range.
The probation office recalculated Beckham’s amended range (without reapplying the § 4A1.3 departure) as 140–175 months; because Beckham’s current 135-month sentence was below that range, the district court denied relief.
Beckham appealed, arguing (1) the court should have included his § 4A1.3 departure in the amended-range calculation, and (2) Amendment 759 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Beckham)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Whether a § 4A1.3 criminal-history departure must be reapplied when computing the amended Guidelines range under § 1B1.10 for § 3582(c)(2) relief	§ 1B1.10 refers to § 1B1.1(a)(6) (which points to Part A of Chapter 4, including § 4A1.3), so the § 4A1.3 adjustment should be part of the applicable guideline range for non-career offenders	Amendment 759 and § 1B1.10 commentary clarify the applicable range is determined before any departures; § 4A1.3 is a departure and thus not reapplied	Held: District court correctly excluded the § 4A1.3 departure; Beckham’s sentence is below the amended range so no reduction is authorized
Whether Amendment 759 (precluding reductions below the amended range) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause	Eliminating the ability to reduce a sentence below an amended range after Beckham committed his offense increased his punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause	Amendment 759 merely limits future discretionary relief from later Guidelines amendments; defendants had no entitlement to future amendment-based reductions, so there is no ex post facto problem	Held: Amendment 759 does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; affirmed

United States v. Taylor, 815 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2016) (interpreting § 1B1.10 and Amendment 759 to bar reapplying departures)
United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010) (rejecting interpretation that a departure can create the applicable guideline range)
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (Ex Post Facto Clause test: whether change increases punishment risk)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (no entitlement to future Guidelines amendment relief)
Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) (retroactive reduction in good-conduct credit can violate Ex Post Facto)
United States v. Diggs, 768 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2014) (Amendment 759 does not raise ex post facto concerns)
United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (same conclusion on retroactive amendment relief)