United States v. Keith Thompson, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9132
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Thompson moved for a §3582(c)(2) sentence reduction in Jan 2012 based on Amendments 706 and 750; district court denied and on appeal we remanded to consider Jackson’s impact; district court held Jackson did not apply.
- Thompson pleaded guilty on Apr 11, 2006 to three counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C) under a non-binding plea; government dismissed two counts and agreed not to oppose a sentence of at least 120 months.
- Sentencing showed a base offense level of 24 under §2D1.1, but Thompson’s status as a career offender set a higher base level to 32 under §4B1.1; judge downwardly departed to 29, with a guideline range of 151–188 months given criminal history category VI, but imposed 120 months pursuant to the plea.
- On remand, the district court read Jackson to mean eligibility for §3582(c)(2) if crack guidelines were a relevant part of the analytic framework or formed part of the sentence; court found crack guidelines were not applicable because Thompson’s sentence rested on career offender status.
- Thompson argued eligibility under §3582(c)(2) because crack guidelines informed the original sentencing and the plea-term; he also argued the district court should consider 3553(a) factors as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson is eligible for a §3582(c)(2) reduction. | Thompson alleges crack guidelines informed the sentence and are lowered. | The career-offender status meant the crack guidelines did not affect either the range or the sentence. | Not eligible; amendment did not affect the sentence given career offender status. |
| Whether Thompson's sentence was “based on” the crack guidelines. | The crack guidelines informed the range and the term. | The sentence was based on career offender status, not crack guidelines. | Not based on crack guidelines; career offender status controls. |
| Whether Jackson compels relief under §3582(c)(2). | Jackson would require relief when crack guidelines influenced sentencing. | Jackson is distinguishable; no crack-guideline influence here. | Jackson does not apply to Thompson’s case. |
| Whether the district court should have examined §3553(a) factors under §3582(c)(2). | If eligible, district court must consider §3553(a). | Eligibility fails, so §3553(a) review unnecessary. | Irrelevant since Thompson is not eligible for reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (two-step inquiry for §3582(c)(2) eligibility and discretion)
- United States v. Freeman, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (holding on guidelines-based eligibility under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea relevance; concurrence used for narrow grounds)
- United States v. Jackson, 678 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishable; career offender context; disparity in crack-powder not relevant to Thompson)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (two-step eligibility and consideration of 3553(a) factors)
- Hameed, 614 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2010) (basis for sentencing under guidelines and whether affected by amendments)
- Gillis, 592 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2009) (analysis of career-offender vs crack guidelines impact on sentence)
- Perdue, 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009) (amendments not affecting sentence when career offender range applies)