United States v. Kurtz, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5752

William Kurtz pled guilty (Nov 2011) to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute >5 grams of methamphetamine; plea stipulated ~48.4 g pure meth and that he was a minor participant and accepted responsibility.
Probation’s PSR adjusted drug quantity upward (equivalent to 6,068 kg marijuana), recommended no minor-role reduction, but recorded the plea stipulations producing a total offense level of 27 and a Guidelines range of 78–97 months.
At sentencing (Mar 2012) the district court found Kurtz responsible for the larger quantity, denied the minor-role reduction, set total offense level at 33 (range 151–188), but varied downward to impose a 78‑month sentence; Kurtz did not appeal.
Kurtz moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Feb 2015), seeking a two‑level reduction under retroactive Amendment 782 (effective Nov 1, 2014) to reduce his sentence to 63 months.
The district court denied relief (Aug 2015); Kurtz appealed. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non‑frivolous issues, and Kurtz filed a short response.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo under Anders and dismissed the appeal, holding the court lacked authority to reduce Kurtz’s sentence below the amended Guidelines range and that Amendment 759 (which limits reductions below the amended range) does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kurtz is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782	Amendment 782 lowers base offense level by 2, producing a lower Guidelines range (63–78 months from PSR numbers) and entitling Kurtz to a reduced sentence	§ 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 prevent reducing Kurtz’s actual sentence below the minimum of the amended range; his original sentence (78 mo) is already below the amended range (121–151 mo) so no authority to reduce	Denied — district court lacked statutory authority to reduce below the amended Guidelines minimum absent a government §5K1.1 motion
Whether Amendment 759 (narrowing exceptions allowing reductions below the amended range) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause	Amendment 759 impermissibly increases punishment by preventing courts from granting reductions they previously could have given	Amendment 759 limits judicial discretion to reduce final sentences but does not increase the statutory punishment for the offense and thus does not trigger the Ex Post Facto Clause	Denied — no ex post facto violation because the amendment does not increase punishment for the underlying crime

Calderon v. United States, 428 F.3d 928 (10th Cir.) (Anders review requires independent court examination)
Lucero v. United States, 713 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) review standards)
Leon v. United States, 476 F.3d 829 (10th Cir. 2007) (Anders de novo review)
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (ex post facto inquiry focuses on risk of increasing punishment)
Weiss v. United States, 630 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2010) (ex post facto analysis at sentencing)
Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) (ex post facto clause principles regarding punishment and notice)
Colon v. United States, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (rejecting ex post facto challenge to guideline amendments narrowing post‑sentence relief)
Waters v. United States, 771 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2014) (same conclusion regarding Amendment 759)