United States v. Louis Jean Hippolyte
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5154
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hippolyte was convicted on Counts One, Four, Five, Six, and Seven for crack/powder cocaine offenses and received concurrent 240-month minimums on Counts One, Four, Five, and Seven and 189 months on Count Six.
- On appeal, this court previously affirmed Hippolyte’s convictions and sentences in 1997.
- In 2011 Hippolyte moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce the sentences based on Amendment 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act.
- The district court denied relief, holding that the mandatory minimums prevented a § 3582(c)(2) reduction.
- The issue on appeal is whether Amendment 750 and the FSA may lower Hippolyte’s sentence in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FSA apply to § 3582(c)(2) reductions for pre-Act offenders? | Hippolyte contends FSA should apply and reduce minimums. | Glover/Berry control; FSA does not retroactively apply to pre-Act sentences. | FSA does not apply retroactively; no reduction. |
| Does Amendment 750/759 allow a § 3582(c)(2) reduction by lowering the applicable guideline range when a mandatory minimum remains? | Amendment 750 lowered range; Amendment 759 defines range; eligible for reduction. | Amendment 750 does not lower the range when a mandatory minimum applies; no reduction. | Amendment 750/759 do not lower the applicable range here; no § 3582(c)(2) reduction. |
| Is Hippolyte’s reading of the new 'applicable guideline range' definition under Amendment 759 correct for § 3582(c)(2)? | Amendment 759 redefines range to exclude minimums, aiding relief. | The definition does not override mandatory minimums or savings; prior-law rule controls. | Definition does not establish eligibility; no relief. |
| Does Berry control the outcome for whether a FSA-based reduction is available in this case? | Berry supports FSA application to § 3582(c)(2). | Berry forecloses relief; FSA not retroactive and Amendment 750 ineffective here. | Berry controls; no § 3582(c)(2) relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry, 701 F.3d 374 (11th Cir. 2012) (FSA not retroactive to pre-Act sentences; § 3582(c)(2) relief denied)
- Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (guidelines amendment must actually lower range to justify reduction)
- Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008) (reduction authorized only if amendment lowers defendant’s range)
- Williams, 549 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008) (defined applicable guideline range including possible mandatory minimums)
- Dorsey v. United States, S. Ct. (2012) (FSA’s new minimums apply to pre-Act offenders for proportionality)
- United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374 (11th Cir. 2012) (no retroactive FSA relief where defendant’s sentence anchored by mandatory minimum)
- United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (amendment must lower guideline range to authorize § 3582(c)(2) reduction)
- United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2010) (status as career offender treated like mandatory minimum for purposes of reductions)