United States v. Kevin Caden, 699 F. App'x 105

Kevin Robert Caden, a federal prisoner, was convicted of attempting to manufacture >1 kg methamphetamine (Count One), possession of P2P (Count Two), and possession of monomethylamine knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine (Count Three).
At sentencing the district court (post-Apprendi) found, based on expert testimony, that the labs could produce ~73.2 kg of pure methamphetamine, yielding a base offense level of 38 and a statutory guideline exposure of 360 months to life; the court imposed 240 months on Count One plus consecutive terms on Counts Two and Three.
This Court affirmed on direct appeal, rejecting Apprendi and clear-error challenges to the quantity finding (United States v. Chorin).
Caden moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 (the "drugs -2" guideline amendment), which retroactively lowered many drug base offense levels by two.
The district court denied relief, concluding Amendment 782 did not lower Caden’s applicable guideline range because a base level of 38 still applies at 45 kg or more; thus Caden was ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
Caden argued the court should nonetheless consider discretionary factors (rehabilitation, and that no actual drugs were seized), but the court held it lacked authority to reach discretion because the guideline range was not lowered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Caden is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782	Amendment 782 should lower Caden’s guideline range and permit a sentence reduction; court should consider § 3553(a) factors including rehabilitation and lack of seized drugs	Amendment 782 does not lower Caden’s applicable guideline range because level 38 still applies at 45 kg+, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is not authorized	Court held Caden is ineligible: Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable guideline range, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is unavailable; affirmed summary denial

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts supporting increased penalties must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) authorizes only limited sentence reductions within the Commission’s bounds)
United States v. Chorin, 322 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2003) (affirming district court’s quantity finding and sentence; discusses Apprendi timing)
United States v. Thompson, 825 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2016) (describing Amendment 782’s two-level reduction to many drug offense base levels)
United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2012) (plenary review applies when district court determines defendant ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
United States v. Rodriguez, 855 F.3d 526 (3d Cir. 2017) (when an amendment lowers the range, district court may exercise discretion to reduce sentence after considering § 3553(a))
United States v. Styer, 573 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not full resentencings)