United States v. Lewis
662 F. App'x 65
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Anthony Lewis pleaded guilty (2004) to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced (by Judge Kravitz) to 192 months’ imprisonment, below his Guidelines range (360 months–life) based on the drug-quantity calculation and the court’s consideration of his cooperation and § 3553(a) factors.
- At sentencing the Government declined to file a substantial-assistance motion under § 5K1.1, believing Lewis’s trial testimony was not fully truthful, though the court noted his pretrial assistance.
- Subsequent retroactive reductions to the crack-cocaine Guidelines (post-2007, 2010, 2014) prompted Lewis to file § 3582(c)(2) motions seeking reduced sentences; the district court denied each motion.
- Under the amended drug table Lewis’s offense level would fall (leading to lower Guidelines ranges), but Lewis was a career offender whose § 4B1.1(b) offense level exceeded his drug-table level in the relevant calculations.
- The central procedural posture: Lewis appeals denials of his § 3582(c)(2) motions arguing (1) he should be eligible for a reduction because the court previously imposed a below-Guidelines sentence reflecting his substantial assistance, and (2) the district court must preserve its original choice to use the drug-table offense level for resentencing purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewis is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction absent a Government § 5K1.1 motion | Gov: No reduction without a government substantial-assistance motion when the new minimum exceeds the original sentence | Lewis: He provided substantial assistance warranting consideration and thus should be eligible despite no § 5K1.1 motion | Court: Ineligible — § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) requires a government motion; record shows Gov. declined to file one because assistance was insufficient |
| Whether the amended drug-table ranges apply even though the district court originally used the drug table at sentencing | Gov: Must recalculate the amended applicable range; career-offender rule (§4B1.1(b)) still applies and can prevent a reduction | Lewis: The district court’s original selection of the drug-table offense level was a guideline application decision that must remain fixed for the §1B1.10(b)(1) inquiry | Court: The career-offender provision controls if it yields a higher offense level; §1B1.10(b)(1) requires substitution of only the amendment, so the career-offender level governs and precludes a reduction |
| Whether McGee supports treating the drug-table range as operative for reduction | Lewis: McGee permitted treating drug-table range as operative where district court had effectively departed to it | Gov: McGee is limited to cases where the district court expressly granted a downward departure to the drug table | Court: McGee is distinguishable — no downward departure was granted here, so McGee does not help Lewis |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (policy-statement-driven limits on § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for eligibility under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Erskine, 717 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (discussion of §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) and substantial-assistance issue)
- United States v. Steele, 714 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 2013) (denial of reduction when government did not file a substantial-assistance motion)
- United States v. McGee, 553 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2009) (limited holding where district court granted downward departure from career-offender range to drug-table range)
- United States v. Tellis, 748 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2014) (career-offender status can prevent § 3582(c)(2) relief)