United States v. McPherson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1186
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- McPherson, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2004 to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Presentence report: total offense level 33, criminal history category IV, resulting in an advisory range of 188–235 months, but a 240-month statutory minimum applied under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and § 851.
- District court granted the government's motion for substantial assistance under USSG § 5K1.1 and sentenced McPherson to 168 months based on a total offense level of 32 and CHIV IV.
- In December 2009, McPherson moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) citing Amendment 706, which reduced cocaine base offense levels from 32 to 30.
- District court denied the motion, concluding McPherson was ineligible because the sentence was based on the mandatory minimum of 240 months, not a lowered guideline range.
- On appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief and then the court conducted an independent review, ultimately affirming the denial and allowing counsel to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McPherson is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief. | McPherson | McPherson | Not eligible; Amendment 706 did not lower the mandatory minimum. |
| Whether the sentence was based on a lowered guideline range after Amendment 706. | McPherson's range would be 30 after amendment | Sentence anchored to 240-month minimum | Sentence not based on a lowered guideline range; Amendment 706 not applicable. |
| Whether Johnson controls the outcome for mandatory-minimum cases under § 3582(c)(2). | Johnson allows reduction when guidelines are lowered | Johnson bars relief when mandatory minimum remains unchanged | Johnson forecloses relief here; mandatory minimum maintained. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion in light of retroactive Amendment 706. | Reduction should apply to lowered range | No reduction because range not lowered | District court did not err; no retroactive reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2009) (mandatory-minimum cases not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief when amendment does not lower range)
- United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009) (clarifies § 3582(c)(2) procedure and limits to lowered ranges)
- United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010) (amendment must lower applicable guideline range for reduction)