United States v. Michael Dillon
676 F. App'x 377
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Dillon pleaded guilty in 2005 to two cocaine-related offenses and was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment.
- In 2014 Dillon moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
- The district court denied the motion, stating it had carefully considered all submitted information including the PSR and that the original sentence was fair and reasonable.
- The Probation Office prepared an “Amendment 782 Eligibility Information Sheet” that pertained to a different defendant with the same last name, a fact in the record the panel found undermined confidence in the court’s consideration.
- The Fifth Circuit determined the record left open the possibility the district court relied on erroneous, unrelated facts or failed to properly apply the two-step § 3582(c)(2) inquiry and § 3553(a) considerations.
- The appellate court vacated and remanded for reevaluation on a clarified and complete record, without expressing any view on the merits of Dillon’s reduction request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court adequately considered a § 3582(c)(2) motion and applied the required two-step inquiry and § 3553(a) factors | Dillon argued the court abused its discretion by failing to give adequate consideration to his § 3582(c)(2) motion | Government implicitly contended the district court properly considered the motion and denied relief as reasonable | Court vacated and remanded because the record showed the court may have relied on an eligibility sheet for a different person, leaving open that erroneous facts influenced the decision; remand required for reconsideration on a clarified record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing § 3582(c)(2) denials and two-step inquiry assumption)
- United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2005) (district court abuses discretion by relying on an error of law or clearly erroneous factual assessment)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (defendant entitled to adequate consideration of a § 3582(c)(2) motion)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2011) (assumption that courts perform the two-step § 3582(c)(2) analysis)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (appellate courts may sua sponte notice unraised errors in exceptional circumstances for fairness and public interest)