United States v. Michael Paul Maiello, Jr.
805 F.3d 992
11th Cir.2015Background
- Amendment 782 lowered base offense levels by two levels across drug types; retroactive application was adopted with a one-year delay under USSG § 1B1.10(e) for pre-sentencing-date offenders.
- Amendment 782 became effective Nov 1, 2014; Amendment 788 made it retroactive but retained the Nov 1, 2015 delayed effective date for pre-2014 offenders.
- Maiello pled guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine and is serving a 108-month sentence with a February 5, 2016 release date.
- Maiello moved on Feb 3, 2015 for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782; the district court granted a reduction but left the 1B1.10(e) delay in place, projecting release on Nov 2, 2015.
- Maiello argues the district court erred by applying the 1B1.10(e) delay and seeks immediate release; the government contends § 3582(c)(2) and the policy statements bind the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(a) was violated by applying 1B1.10(e) | Maiello argues the delay lengthens his sentence | 1B1.10(e) binding; § 3582(a) not controlling here | No violation; 3582(a) not controlling, 1B1.10(e) binding |
| Whether 1B1.10(e) exceeds statutory authority | Maiello contends the policy is beyond authority | Commission acted within its delegated authority | Did not exceed authority; valid interpretation under § 994(u) and § 3582(c)(2) |
| Whether the selection of Nov 1, 2015 as the earliest release date was arbitrary | APA challenge; date chosen arbitrarily | Amendment process considered multiple factors; date reasonable | Not arbitrary or capricious; APA not applicable to Commission in this context; date reasonable |
| Whether the delay violates the separation of powers | Separation of powers breached by limiting judicial discretion | Congress delegated authority; not encroaching on Article III; consistent with Dillon and Colon | No separation of powers violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (sentence-modification allowed within narrow bounds of § 3582(c)(2))
- Colon v. United States Sentencing Comm., 707 F.3d 1257 (2013) (policy statements binding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings; APA not applicable to Commission actions)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (cannot lengthen imprisonment to promote rehabilitation; distinct from § 3582(c)(2) context)
- Vandergrift v. United States, 754 F.3d 1303 (2014) (application of Tapia to revocation sentences; distinguishable from § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)