United States v. Joe Webb
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14263
6th Cir.2014Background
- Webb pled guilty in two drug cases; district court sentenced pre-FSA crack-minimum under 240 months due to career-offender status and related concerns.
- Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) before the sentencing hearing but after plea and some pre-plea negotiations.
- PSR initially showed range 188–235 months, but career offender status pushed range to 262–327 months; court varied downward to 240 months (pre-FSA) due to concerns about career-offender penalty amount and other factors.
- In 2012–2013 Webb moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for retroactive guideline application; district court found eligible for counts where crack guidelines applied and resentenced to 188 months on all counts after applying FSA amendments.
- Government appealed, arguing the district court lacked authority under § 3582(c)(2) because the original sentence was not based on a lowered guideline range.
- The Sixth Circuit held the district court erred and remanded to reinstate the initial sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) authority exists here | Webb contends he is eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). | Government argues the district court lacked authority to reduce under § 3582(c)(2). | Authority lacking; remand to reinstate original sentence. |
| Whether Webb’s sentence was ‘based on’ a range subsequently lowered | Webb argues the sentence was not tied to a career-offender range that was subsequently lowered. | Government contends the sentence was based on a range that had not been lowered. | Not based on a subsequently lowered range; § 3582(c)(2) not satisfied. |
| Effect of amendments to the Guidelines on ‘applicable guideline range’ | Webb asserts retroactive amendments could lower the applicable range. | Government asserts career-offender range remained unchanged by retroactive amendments. | Career-offender range not lowered; no § 3582(c)(2) relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) authorizes reductions, not a full resentencing)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (S. Ct. 2011) (interpretation of ‘based on’ guideline range under § 3582(c)(2))
- Hameed v. United States, 614 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2010) (how to determine when a sentence is based on a subsequently lowered range)
- Thompson v. United States, 714 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2013) (two-step approach to eligibility under § 3582(c)(2))
- Riley v. United States, 726 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2013) (eligibility requires lowered sentencing range and consistency with policy statements)
- Carradine v. United States, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010) (pre-FSA sentencing framework; post-FSA changes later clarified)
- Dorsey v. United States, --- U.S. --- (2012) (definitively applied FSA penalties to post-enactment sentencing)
- Blewett v. United States, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) applies to amendments lowered by the Commission)
- Curry v. United States, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) not a broad grant of resentencing authority)