United States v. Jerry Jerome Anderson
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21869
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Anderson was convicted in 1990 on multiple drug and money laundering counts, with at least 56 kilos of crack cocaine involved according to the PSI, yielding a base level of 42 plus 4 points, for a total offense level of 46 and a life imprisonment range.
- At sentencing in 1991, the district court sentenced Anderson to life imprisonment based on at least 15 kilograms of crack cocaine, with evidence supporting 56+ kilograms.
- Amendment 505 in 2006 lowered some base offense levels; the district court recalculated to a 360-month to life range but maintained life imprisonment after considering 3553(a) factors.
- Anderson unsuccessfully moved for reductions under Amendments 706 (2008) and 705/505 in prior proceedings; Eleventh Circuit proceedings affirmed denial, with Anders withdrawn on appeal.
- In 2011, Anderson filed a renewed § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 750; the district court denied, concluding Amendment 750 did not lower his guidelines range.
- In May 2013, Anderson filed a renewed motion for reduction arguing marijuana-equivalency tables from Amendment 750 would lower his range; the district court again denied, and appellate review ensued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear renewed motion | Anderson—no jurisdictional bar to successive § 3582(c)(2) motions. | Government—no jurisdiction for successive motion after prior litigated motion. | District court jurisdiction to hear renewed motion affirmed. |
| Law-of-the-case applicability | Law-of-the-case should not bar new arguments based on Amendment 750. | Earlier appellate decision binds same issues as law of the case. | Court applies law-of-the-case analysis and limits reconsideration of merits. |
| Merits of Amendment 750 relief | Marijuana-equivalency changes under Amendment 750 would lower range and justify relief. | Amendment 750 did not lower his guidelines range due to existing conviction facts, so no relief. | Amendment 750 did not reduce Anderson's guidelines range; no entitlement to reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional and statutory scope for § 3582(c)(2) appeals)
- United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes merits denial from procedural denial; Rule 35 implications)
- United States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of district court authority in § 3582(c)(2))
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court 2006) (clear articulation required for jurisdictional limits)
- United States v. Burns, 662 F.2d 1378 (11th Cir. 1981) (law-of-the-case exceptions and manifest injustice standard)
- United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2012) (limitations on § 3582(c)(2) proceedings context)
- Litman v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 800 F.2d 147 (11th Cir. 1987) (law-of-the-case framework and related doctrine)
- Pope v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 752 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) (courts may raise law-of-the-case sua sponte)
- United States v. Wallace, 573 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2009) (law-of-the-case in successive § 3582(c)(2) context)