United States v. Marcus Hicks
663 F. App'x 299
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hicks appealed district court denial of a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction following the retroactive guideline amendments.
- He was sentenced in 2011 to 240 months based on 510 grams of crack and a prior felony conviction, resulting in a Guideline range and a mandatory minimum.
- He argued Amendment 782/788 reduced his offense level and that the FSA applied via Dorsey to yield a 10-year minimum, not 20.
- He contends the 510 grams found at sentencing, not the indictment’s 50+ grams, should determine the mandatory minimum for § 3582 proceedings.
- The district court concluded Hicks was not eligible for a reduction to circumvent the mandatory minimum, and denied the motion.
- The court reviews § 3582(c)(2) decisions for abuse of discretion, with de novo interpretation of guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hicks is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendments 782/788. | Hicks argues retroactive guideline reductions apply to him. | Hicks is limited by § 5G1.1(c)(2) and not eligible for a reduced minimum. | No; Hicks not eligible due to statutory minimum constraints. |
| Whether the FSA reduces Hicks’s mandatory minimum under Dorsey. | FSA applies; 10-year minimum governs. | Minimum is 20 years due to 510 grams found and prior conviction. | FSA applies but does not reduce the mandatory minimum here. |
| Whether indictment quantity controls for § 3582 proceedings after Alleyne. | Indictment quantity (50+ grams) should govern. | Judicial findings at sentencing (510 grams) govern; Alleyne not applicable in § 3582. | Alleyne cannot be used to expand § 3582 scope; not cognizable. |
| Whether Alleyne-based relief would overstep § 3582's scope and procedures. | Relief should follow Alleyne's jury-finding rule. | § 3582 is narrow and not a vehicle for new case law. | |
| Alleyne-based relief not available in § 3582 proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two-step framework for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact increasing a mandatory minimum is an element to be found by a jury)
- Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard; review of § 3582 decisions)
- Pardue, 36 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 1994) (mandatory minimum overrides retroactive guideline reductions)
- Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (retroactive amendments govern § 3582 eligibility)