United States v. Kojak Batiste
980 F.3d 466
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Kojak Batiste pleaded guilty in 2007 to distributing ≥50 grams of crack cocaine and, due to a §851 enhancement and a career-offender classification (U.S.S.G. §4B1.1), was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised crack thresholds and reduced statutory penalties but was not retroactive; the First Step Act §404 (2018) gives district courts discretionary authority to apply Fair Act changes retroactively to covered offenses.
- In 2019 Batiste moved under §404 for resentencing, arguing eligibility and requesting a downward variance to 120 months (or time served) and reduction of supervised release to the current 8-year minimum, relying on post‑sentencing conduct and §3553(a) factors.
- The government conceded eligibility but opposed reducing below the unchanged career‑offender guidelines range, emphasizing Batiste’s extensive criminal history and violent predicate offense.
- The district court denied relief as to imprisonment, concluding (applying Hegwood) it could only alter the legal landscape as to Fair Act changes and that a 262‑month sentence remained appropriate; it did not expressly address supervised release.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial as to imprisonment (no abuse of discretion), but remanded for the district court to consider and decide the supervised‑release reduction request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court misinterpreted Hegwood so as to bar consideration of §3553(a) factors or downward variance | United States: Court properly followed Hegwood; §404 allows limited adjustment and court may consider §3553(a) but can exercise discretion to deny relief | Batiste: Hegwood does not prevent consideration of §3553(a) or a downward variance; court failed to consider those factors | Held: No legal error; court considered the record and permissibly exercised discretion to deny reduction |
| Adequacy of district court's explanation for denying reduction of imprisonment | United States: Written order and record show the court considered arguments and §3553(a); explanation adequate | Batiste: Court failed to address his arguments and did not explain denial sufficiently | Held: Explanation adequate as to imprisonment; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable under §404 resentencing | United States: Court should be afforded discretion; no plenary resentencing so Booker‑style substantive review inapplicable | Batiste: 262 months is substantively unreasonable given rehabilitation and changed landscape | Held: Substantive‑reasonableness review inapplicable here; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether district court addressed reduction of supervised release term | United States: Did not address on merits but remand may be appropriate | Batiste: Requested reduction to 8 years; court overlooked issue | Held: District court did not explicitly address supervised release; remanded for consideration and disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act §404 permits limited resentencing “as if” Fair Sentencing Act applied, not a plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2019) (district court need not consider post‑sentencing conduct but may do so; §3553(a) factors can be considered)
- United States v. Stewart, 964 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2020) (Amendments to Guidelines mandated by the Fair Act may be applied in §404 resentencing; distinguishes Hegwood’s limits)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (explains Fair Sentencing Act’s change to crack/powder disparity and nonretroactivity of 2010 Act)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (in §3582(c)(2) context, district court not required to provide detailed §3553(a) explanation; parallels in limited resentencing review)