United States v. Joe Billy Russell, Jr.
20-5458
| 6th Cir. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- In 2008–2009 Russell was tied to 9.1 grams of crack (5.2 g found in a car, 3.5 g sold to an informant, later a 0.4 g controlled buy) and pleaded guilty in 2010 to a § 841 drug-count charged under § 841(b)(1)(C) (unspecified quantity).
- The government filed a § 851 enhancement based on prior felonies; Russell was treated as a career offender, which drove his Guidelines offense level and produced a 188–235 month range.
- Russell was sentenced on November 1, 2010 (the same day the Fair Sentencing Act and revised Guidelines took effect); the court imposed 188 months at the bottom of the range.
- The First Step Act (2018) made certain Fair Sentencing Act changes retroactive via § 404, allowing district courts to reduce sentences for "covered offenses"—those whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.
- Russell moved under § 404 for a sentence reduction arguing his conviction under § 841(b)(1)(C) was a covered offense (and that the sentencing court had indicated it would have given "some leniency"), and he submitted evidence of rehabilitation; the district court denied the motion.
- The Sixth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. United States, which concluded the Fair Sentencing Act modified only § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B), not (C); because Russell was convicted under (C), his offense is not a covered offense and he is ineligible for § 404 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Russell) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under § 841(b)(1)(C) is a "covered offense" under First Step Act § 404 | The First Step Act asks only whether the Fair Sentencing Act changed the statute of conviction's statutory penalties; Russell argued (C) should qualify | The Fair Sentencing Act modified only subsections (A) and (B); subsection (C) was not changed and thus is not covered | Terry v. United States controls: (C) was not modified; conviction under (C) is not a covered offense, so no § 404 relief |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a § 404 reduction given sentencing remarks and rehabilitation evidence | The sentencing judge’s statement that Russell would have received "some leniency" and evidence of rehabilitation warranted a reduced sentence | Because Russell’s offense is not a covered offense, the court lacks authority to reduce the sentence; therefore denial was proper | No abuse of discretion: ineligibility under § 404 is dispositive, so denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858 (2021) (Supreme Court held the Fair Sentencing Act modified statutory penalties for § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) but not (C))
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (Fair Sentencing Act applies to offenders whose crimes preceded August 3, 2010 but were sentenced after that date)
- United States v. Boulding, 960 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2020) (discussing First Step Act § 404 and retroactivity of Fair Sentencing Act changes)
- United States v. Beamus, 943 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2019) (explaining § 404 sentence-reduction mechanism)
- United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010) (then-existing Sixth Circuit precedent that Fair Sentencing Act was not retroactive)