United States v. Lightfoot
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24429
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lightfoot pled guilty in 2004 to felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; total offense level 23, criminal history IV, Guidelines range 130–147 months; district court sentenced him to 130 months and five years of supervised release.
- Amendment 706 lowered crack cocaine guidelines retroactively; Lightfoot sought a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on the amended range.
- District court found Lightfoot eligible for reduction but declined to grant one after weighing § 3553(a) factors and danger to the community.
- Lightfoot appealed, arguing waiver barred the § 3582(c)(2) challenge and challenging the district court’s denial on the merits.
- The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231, 3582(c)(2); this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
- The panel held that Lightfoot’s waiver did not encompass the § 3582(c)(2) motion, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Lightfoot waive § 3582(c)(2) appeal rights? | Waiver covers any aspect of the sentence; includes modifications. | Waiver only covers direct appeal of the original sentence, not § 3582(c)(2) motions. | Waiver does not waive § 3582(c)(2) appeal rights. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) reduction? | Amended guidelines justify a reduction based on retroactive change. | Maintaining public safety and the original sentence justifies denial. | No abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2009) (direct applicability of § 3582(c)(2) standards; retroactive amendments)
- United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2009) (retroactive application of amendments; guideline range reductions)
- United States v. Colson, 573 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction and waiver considerations in § 3582(c)(2) context)
- United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2007) (limits of sentence modification proceedings under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) motions are not traditional appeals; waivers may not bar them)