United States v. Johnson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1754
2d Cir.2011Background
- Johnson, Flaharty, and Bruce were convicted in 1999 of conspiracy to distribute narcotics near a school as part of a crack cocaine distribution operation in Far Rockaway, Queens.
- The district court allocated the conspiracy's overall crack cocaine sales—roughly 88 kilograms over its life—to each defendant for sentencing as coconspirators.
- Johnson and Bruce received life sentences; Flaharty received a 15-year term; these sentences were imposed before Amendment 706.
- Amendment 706 reduced crack base offense levels and was applied retroactively, but the Sentencing Commission advised reductions under 3582(c)(2) require a lower amended guideline range.
- The defendants moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for sentence reductions based on the amended Guidelines; the district court denied, and the district court’s order was affirmed on appeal.
- The court held that Amendment 706 did not lower the defendants' guideline ranges, rendering them ineligible for reductions under § 3582(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 706 lowered the defendants' guideline ranges for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility | Johnson, Flaharty, Bruce argue ranges would be lower under amended Guidelines | The ranges were not changed by Amendment 706 | No; ranges not lowered, ineligible for reductions |
| Whether quantities attributable to the conspiracy were properly used to calculate base offense levels | Defendants challenge attribution of large quantities not specifically charged | Quantities are relevant conduct within same course of conduct | Attribution upheld; 88 kg attributed to Johnson and Bruce for sentencing |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of the district court's factual determinations on 3582(c)(2) motions | Requests de novo or less deferential review? | District court findings reviewed for clear error with de novo for legal questions | District court denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion based on facts and law |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vazzano, 906 F.2d 879 (2d Cir.1990) (review of factual findings; legal questions de novo; abuse of discretion standard for denial of § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Santiago, 906 F.2d 867 (2d Cir.1990) (relevant conduct and quantity for base offense level when not charged in indictment)
- United States v. Schaper, 903 F.2d 891 (2d Cir.1990) (same-course-of-conduct doctrine for narcotics quantities)
- United States v. Payne, 591 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.2010) (defendants bear responsibility for reasonably foreseeable quantities as conspirators)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.2009) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion considerations for § 3582(c)(2) rulings)