United States v. Kenneth Gossett
671 F. App'x 748
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Gossett pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to use/maintain a place for dispensing controlled substances (18 U.S.C. § 371).
- At sentencing his Guidelines range was calculated as 168–210 months, but the statutory maximum for his offense was 60 months, so the Guidelines range was capped at 60 months.
- The court granted a downward departure for substantial assistance and imposed a 42‑month sentence.
- Gossett moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 (which lowered base offense levels).
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion and a later motion to reconsider; Gossett appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 782 lowered Gossett's applicable Guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility | Amendment 782 reduced his offense level and thus should lower his Guidelines range to permit a reduction | The amended Guidelines range (135–168) still exceeds the statutory maximum, so the applicable range remains the statutory maximum and Amendment 782 did not affect eligibility | Denied — Amendment 782 did not lower the applicable Guidelines range because the statutory maximum controlled, so § 3582(c)(2) relief was unavailable |
| Whether § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) allows a below‑range reduction reflecting prior substantial‑assistance departure | § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) permits reducing the sentence proportionally below the amended Guidelines range when the original sentence was below the then‑range due to substantial assistance | The subsection applies only if the threshold § 1B1.10(a) requirement is met (i.e., the amendment actually lowered the applicable Guidelines range) | Denied — the exception does not apply because the amendment did not change the applicable range |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying reconsideration | Reconsideration was warranted after Amendment 782 | The denial was proper because the underlying § 3582(c)(2) denial was correct and no new arguments were presented | Denied — motion to reconsider properly denied; no new argument that was unavailable earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for district court's legal conclusions under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2000) (when recalculating Guidelines for § 3582(c)(2), substitute only the amended guideline and keep other sentencing determinations intact)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (limits on reducing a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and interaction with § 1B1.10)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (motions for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate matters or raise arguments that could have been raised earlier)