944 F.3d 769
8th Cir.2019Background
- In 1999 McDonald was convicted (Count 39) of distributing two ounces (~57 g) of cocaine base and sentenced to life imprisonment; the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
- In 2015 McDonald moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Guidelines Amendment 782; in 2016 the district court reduced his sentence to 360 months.
- In January 2019 McDonald filed a pro se motion under the First Step Act § 404 seeking a reduced sentence based on the Fair Sentencing Act’s lowered penalties for cocaine base.
- The district court denied the § 404 motion without a hearing, reasoning McDonald’s Guidelines calculation was tied to >150 kg of powder cocaine and therefore he was ineligible.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit held Count 39 is a “covered offense” under § 404 because McDonald was convicted of distributing cocaine base and the statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act; the court found the district court erred in making eligibility turn on the Guidelines powder‑cocaine calculation.
- The court remanded for the district court to exercise its discretion whether to reduce McDonald’s sentence, noting the earlier § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 does not by itself bar § 404 relief because it was not a reduction “in accordance with” the Fair Sentencing Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonald is eligible under the First Step Act § 404 | Count 39 is a cocaine‑base conviction, so it is a covered offense | District court found ineligible because Guidelines were based on powder cocaine quantity | Eligible: statute of conviction, not Guidelines conduct, controls eligibility |
| Whether prior § 3582(c)(2) reduction prevents § 404 relief | Prior reduction does not mean § 404 is unavailable | Government: prior reduction made his sentence already within Fair Sentencing Act limits | Prior § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 does not bar § 404 relief unless it was a reduction “in accordance with” the Fair Sentencing Act; remand to decide discretionary relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (describes Fair Sentencing Act’s reduction of the cocaine base/powder disparity and its temporal effect)
- United States v. Nicholson, 231 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirmed McDonald’s original conviction and sentence)
- United States v. Gamble, 683 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of applicability of Fair Sentencing Act principles)