United States v. Luis C. Bennett
20-13084
| 11th Cir. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- Luis C. Bennett, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Bennett argued Amendment 782 lowered his base offense level (and that § 3553(a) factors supported reduction); the district court denied relief.
- Amendment 782 lowered certain drug-offense base levels; under the Amendment, 150–450 kg of cocaine corresponds to base offense level 36.
- § 3582(c)(2) proceedings require recalculation under the amended guideline range but leave other guideline application decisions (e.g., drug-quantity findings) intact and are not plenary resentencings.
- The district court had already reduced Bennett’s offense level to 36 at sentencing, so applying Amendment 782 would not lower his applicable guideline range and would be inconsistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 policy.
- The court also held Bennett could not relitigate drug-quantity findings or raise ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, and there is no statutory or constitutional right to counsel for such motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 | Amendment 782 lowers his base offense level; seeks reduction | He already has offense level 36; Amendment would not lower his range | Not eligible — previous reduction produced same level; reduction would be inconsistent with policy |
| Ability to challenge drug-quantity finding in § 3582(c)(2) | May relitigate quantity to obtain lower range | Drug-quantity finding is final for § 3582(c)(2) recalculation | Cannot challenge drug-quantity finding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Trial counsel’s ineffectiveness entitles him to relief | Ineffective-assistance claims are outside § 3582(c)(2) scope | Claim is outside scope and not addressed in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding |
| Right to counsel / effectiveness of appointed counsel in § 3582(c)(2) | Appointed counsel in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding was ineffective | No statutory or constitutional right to counsel for § 3582(c)(2) motions | No right to counsel; ineffective-appellate claim lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of legal conclusions about the scope of authority under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2017) (district court’s grant/denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2000) (other guideline application decisions remain intact; § 3582(c)(2) is not a plenary resentencing)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings have limited scope and are not full resentencings)
- United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2009) (no statutory or constitutional right to counsel for § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (criminal defendants entitled to counsel at critical stages generally)