United States v. Jason Leatch
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10064
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jason Dejuan Leatch was sentenced to 262 months for a crack cocaine conspiracy after the district court granted a downward departure under U.S.S.G. §4A1.3(b) (criminal history overrepresentation), which yielded a criminal history category IV instead of V.
- The Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, lowering base offense levels for most drug offenses; Amendment 782 was made retroactive via U.S.S.G. §1B1.10.
- On Leatch’s §3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence, the district court recalculated the amended guideline range without reapplying the prior §4A1.3(b) departure and reduced the sentence to 235 months (the low end of the amended range without the prior departure).
- Leatch argued the court should have reapplied the §4A1.3(b) departure in calculating the amended guideline range (which would have produced a lower range and a potentially lower new sentence).
- The district court relied on U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 and its commentary, which define the “applicable guideline range” as the range determined before consideration of any departure or variance, and concluded departures (other than a 5K1.1 substantial-assistance departure) cannot be re-applied in a §3582(c)(2) reduction.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, joining other circuits that follow the Sentencing Commission’s commentary limiting reapplication of non‑5K1.1 departures in §3582(c)(2) proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Leatch’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court must disregard prior downward departures (other than 5K1.1) when calculating the amended guideline range for a §3582(c)(2) reduction | The §4A1.3(b) departure is part of the original Guidelines calculation and should be carried into the amended guideline range | §1B1.10 (and its commentary) require the “applicable guideline range” be determined before any departures or variances, so prior departures (except 5K1.1) are not reapplied | Court held departures (other than substantial-assistance 5K1.1) are excluded when determining the amended guideline range under §1B1.10 |
| Whether refusing to reapply the departure violates Booker (Sixth Amendment) | Reapplication is required for a lawful, proportional sentence; denying it implicates Booker principles | Booker does not apply to limited §3582(c)(2) proceedings because they are not full resentencings | Court held Booker does not apply to §3582(c)(2) reductions (Dillon controlling) |
| Whether excluding prior departures violates due process, ex post facto, res judicata, or separation-of-powers principles | Denying the departure here is arbitrary and undermines fairness and proportionality to co-defendants | §3582(c)(2) proceedings are different from resentencings; Commission’s commentary and Congress’s framework control; no protected liberty interest, no ex post facto effect, and no preclusion issue | Court rejected these constitutional and preclusion challenges; no violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§3582(c)(2) reductions are not full resentencings)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (mandatory Guidelines, Sixth Amendment holding)
- United States v. Montanez, 717 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 2013) (interpreting §1B1.10 commentary to bar reapplying §4A1.3 departures)
- United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2007) (discussing departures as sentencing outside the Guidelines range)
- United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434 (4th Cir. 2016) (joining circuits in excluding §4A1.3 departures for §3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting §3582(c)(2) proceedings are limited and not full resentencings)