United States v. Lester
658 F. App'x 396
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Carl Lester pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a stolen firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)) after a search revealed drugs, drug‑trafficking paraphernalia, and firearms.
- PSR applied USSG § 2K2.1: base offense level 24 (two prior felony violent convictions), +4 for possession of 8–24 firearms, +1 (capped) for stolen firearm, +4 under § 2K2.1(b)(6) for possession in connection with drug distribution, yielding a total offense level 33 before acceptance reductions.
- After two-level acceptance reduction and one-level timely-plea reduction, total offense level was 30; Guideline range calculated as 151–188 months but reduced to a 120‑month statutory maximum; district court sentenced him to 120 months.
- Amendment 782 reduced many drug offense base levels in USSG § 2D1.1(c) by two levels and was made retroactive; Lester moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on the amendment.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion because Amendment 782 did not lower Lester’s applicable guideline range—the relevant enhancements came from § 2K2.1(b) (including (b)(6)), which Amendment 782 did not change.
- The Tenth Circuit agreed that the court lacked authority to grant relief but vacated the denial and remanded with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction (per circuit precedent requiring dismissal rather than denial when § 3582 relief is unavailable).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 782 (USSG § 2D1.1 changes) authorizes a § 3582(c)(2) reduction for Lester | Amendment 782 lowers drug‑based offense levels applicable to Lester because drug quantity found supports a lower provisional level | Lester argued the retroactive amendment should reduce his guideline range and allow a sentence reduction | No — Amendment 782 did not affect the guideline provisions (§ 2K2.1 and § 2K2.1(b)(6)) that produced Lester’s applicable guideline range, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is not authorized |
| Proper procedural disposition when § 3582(c)(2) relief is unavailable | Implicitly sought merits consideration of reduction | District court denied the motion on the merits | Dismissal is required for lack of jurisdiction rather than a denial; the panel vacated the denial and remanded with instructions to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2014) (when § 3582(c)(2) relief is unauthorized, the motion should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than denied)
- United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2013) (same rule: if a sentence reduction is not authorized by § 3582, dismissal—not denial—is the appropriate disposition)