United States v. Kimberly Taylor, 815 F.3d 248

Kimberly Taylor pleaded guilty to methamphetamine-related offenses and was originally sentenced to 72 months (below the 108–135 mo. guideline range) after the government moved for a substantial-assistance departure (permiting as low as 87 months) and the district court also granted a separate downward variance to 48 months; the court imposed 72 months (33% below the guideline bottom).
Amendments 782 and 788 retroactively lowered drug offense levels; Taylor’s amended guideline range became 87–108 months.
Taylor moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction to reflect the amended range and sought a reduction comparably below the amended range equal to the original 33% overall reduction (i.e., to 58 months).
The district court reduced Taylor to 70 months, calculating a 19% reduction (the portion attributable to the government’s substantial-assistance departure) but denied a further 14% reduction that would reflect the earlier non-assistance variance.
Taylor and the government jointly moved for reconsideration; the district court denied the motion, concluding U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) permits below-range reductions only to the extent they reflected substantial assistance.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding § 1B1.10(b)(2) limits below-guidelines reductions on resentencing to amounts commensurate with prior substantial-assistance departures and does not permit adding non-assistance variances/departures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1B1.10(b)(2) permits a resentencing reduction below the amended guideline range to reflect non-assistance variances that were part of the original below-guidelines sentence	Taylor: the phrase "reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range" can encompass any component of the original below-guidelines sentence (both assistance and non-assistance), so she is entitled to a 33% reduction	Government/District Ct: § 1B1.10(b)(2) allows below-range reductions only to the extent the original below-range sentence was "pursuant to" a government motion for substantial assistance; non-assistance variances are excluded	Court affirmed: § 1B1.10(b)(2) limits below-guidelines resentencing reductions to the portion attributable to substantial assistance; non-assistance variances/concurrent departures cannot be reapplied

United States v. Steele, 714 F.3d 751 (2d Cir.) (§ 1B1.10 requires applying amended range without reapplying departures other than substantial-assistance departure)
United States v. Hogan, 722 F.3d 55 (1st Cir.) (Commission limited below-range reductions to amounts corresponding to prior substantial-assistance reductions)
United States v. Anderson, 686 F.3d 585 (8th Cir.) (same interpretation limiting reductions to substantial-assistance amounts)
United States v. Joiner, 727 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo when district court concludes it lacks authority under § 3582(c)(2))
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (contextual authority on resentencing and the role of § 3582(c) reductions)