United States v. Kendrick Fulton
670 F. App'x 353
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Fulton, a federal inmate, was serving a 400-month sentence after convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >5 kg cocaine and offenses involving >50 g cocaine base.
- He moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines (crack-cocaine reductions).
- At sentencing the district court made oral findings about the amounts of powder and crack cocaine attributable to Fulton; Fulton had objected to the Presentence Report (PSR) drug-quantity figures.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion and a reconsideration motion, concluding Amendment 750 did not lower Fulton’s applicable Guidelines range given the court’s oral quantity findings.
- Fulton appealed, arguing the district court erred in relying on its drug-quantity findings and that the PSR figures (which he had objected to) should control eligibility for a reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could rely on its oral drug-quantity findings rather than PSR figures to determine § 3582(c)(2) eligibility | Fulton: District court should have used PSR quantities he generally adopted | Govt/District court: Court may rely on its own sentencing findings, not limited to PSR | Court: District court properly relied on its oral findings and was not limited to PSR |
| Whether Fulton may relitigate drug-quantity at § 3582(c)(2) proceeding | Fulton: Various quantity determinations warrant review to establish eligibility | Govt: § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing; quantity issues cannot be relitigated | Court: Fulton may not relitigate quantity in § 3582(c)(2) motion |
| Whether Booker law-of-the-case prevents district court from using its sentencing findings here | Fulton: Booker error on direct appeal prevents reliance on those findings | Govt: Booker does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings | Court: Booker holdings do not govern § 3582(c)(2); law-of-the-case argument fails |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before denying § 3582(c)(2) relief | Fulton: Hearing needed to resolve quantity disputes | Govt: No hearing required; district court’s findings control | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (standards of review for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.) (review of motions for reconsideration)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Apprendi/Booker sentencing principles)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir.) (no relitigation of quantity in § 3582 proceedings)
- Dickens v. Lewis, 750 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir.) (evidentiary hearing not automatically required)
- United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420 (5th Cir.) (district court not limited to PSR findings at sentencing)