United States v. Kenneth Valentine
694 F.3d 665
6th Cir.2012Background
- Valentine defendants challenged retroactive crack amendments under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- District judges Maloney and Jonker separately ruled on eligibility for reductions: Maloney denied for Kenneth, Corey, Johnny; Jonker granted for Jimmy Ray.
- Record at original sentencing showed Judge Enslen found “at least 1.5 kilograms” for Kenneth, Corey, Johnny and “more than 1.5 kilograms” for Jimmy Ray, with concerns about larger totals.
- Appellants argued the original findings were not specific and thus precluded further fact-finding; the government urged record-based supplemental findings.
- Court remanded Jimmy Ray: there was credible evidence of more than 4.5 kilograms; majority affirmed as to ineligibility for Kenneth, Corey, Johnny, and reversed for Jimmy Ray, remanding to determine if ≥4.5 kilograms is shown by a preponderance of the record.
- Key issues concern the scope of retroactive amendments, the meaning of “at least 1.5 kilograms,” and the proper approach to record-based supplementation during a § 3582(c)(2) modification proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are eligible for sentence reductions. | Valentines argue record shows >4.5 kg; ineligibility. | Court improperly applied retroactive amendment scope. | Eligible or not determined; court reviews eligibility, but ultimately denies for Kenneth, Corey, Johnny. |
| Whether original ‘at least 1.5 kg’ findings are specific quantities that limit further fact-finding | Findings are specific ceilings | Findings are general/faulty as specific ceilings; allow further fact-finding. | Not specific findings; modification court must assess quantity anew. |
| Whether modification court may rely on original record (including PSR) for supplemental findings | Moore allows looking at original record. | MSJ; limitation due to 1.5 kg finding. | Modification court must examine original record to determine if amendment lowers the range. |
| Whether Jimmy Ray is eligible for a reduction and on what basis | Original 1.5 kg finding cannot support reduction. | Higher quantity allowed; reduction warranted. | Judge Jonker erred in concluding eligibility; remand for a proper preponderance-of-evidence finding that >4.5 kg is attributable. |
| What standard governs the court’s review of quantity findings | Standard is de novo for eligibility; weigh original transcripts. | Defer to district factual determinations. | Abuse of discretion if misapplied Moore; proper standard requires record-based supplemental findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (retroactive amendments lowering guideline range under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Moore, 582 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2009) (modification court may rely on original sentencing record for quantity findings)
- United States v. Watkins, 625 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 2010) (review of eligibility and quantity under Dillon framework)
- United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2000) (approximation of drug quantity supported by record evidence)
- United States v. McKinney, 464 F. App’x 444 (6th Cir. 2012) (modification record review guidance)
- United States v. Zimmer, 14 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (guideline quantity estimation duty of district court)