United States v. Leo Anderson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15316
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Anderson pled guilty in 2004 to conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine; guideline range was 262–327 months.
- The government granted a downward departure for substantial assistance; Anderson was sentenced to 210 months, 20% below the bottom of the range.
- Following Booker, the district court resentenced to 185 months; further downward variance produced roughly 29% below the initial bottom.
- In 2007 the base offense levels for crack were reduced; retroactive amendments yielded a new amended range of 210–262 months.
- Anderson moved for § 3582(c)(2) relief; district court reduced 29% below the bottom of the amended range, resulting in 148 months.
- After the Fair Sentencing Act, the Commission amended § 1B1.10 (Nov. 2011) to limit reductions below the amended range to comparable reductions for substantial assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of § 1B1.10 to limit below-range reductions | Anderson argues § 1B1.10 exceeds statutory authority by restricting reductions below the amended range to comparable amounts only for substantial-assistance reductions. | Anderson's challenge rests on the Commission's valid exercise of delegated authority to set policy statements governing § 3582(c)(2) reductions. | Policy statement within § 1B1.10 is within the Commission's authority. |
| Constitutionality—nondelegation and separation of powers | Anderson contends the Commission's policy statements impermissibly delegate legislative power and blur separation of powers. | Courts have upheld the Commission under Mistretta; policy statements are constitutional with checks and oversight. | No nondelegation or separation-of-powers violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (sentence reduction is a narrow exception, not plenary resentencing)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (upholds commission structure and checks against separation of powers)
- Harmon v. Horn, 679 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2012) (circuit endorsement of intelligible principle in guiding policy statements)
- United States v. Garcia, 655 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2011) (circuit validation of commission's policy-setting authority)
- United States v. Nash, 627 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2010) (constitutional questions reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Galloway, 976 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1992) (separation-of-powers considerations in sentencing policy)
- United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2011) (oversight and review mechanisms for policy statements)