United States v. Osborn
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10691
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Osborn was convicted in February 2007 of distributing five grams or more of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) with a guideline range of 108–135 months.
- In May 2008, Amendment 706 reduced her offense level and the amended range to 87–108 months; the district court then reduced her sentence to 96 months due to firearm involvement.
- In October 2011, the parties moved for another reduction under Amendment 750 (retroactive under § 1B1.10 and § 3582(c)(2)); the amended range became 57–71 months, but the effective advisory range remained 60–71 months because of a five-year mandatory minimum.
- The district court denied any further reduction, citing § 3553(a) factors, previous reductions, and the belief that the Guidelines were advisory at the original sentencing.
- Osborn appeals, arguing the district court misapplied law and that Amendment 750 mandated a further reduction; the panel affirms the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for §3582(c)(2) reduction after Amendment 750 | Amendment 750 retroactively applies, making Osborn eligible for a sentence reduction. | Eligibility does not guarantee a reduction; the decision remains discretionary. | Osborn is eligible for a reduction, but not entitled; district court retains discretion. |
| Whether district court abused discretion by relying on historical factors | Court properly considered §3553(a) factors, including offense characteristics. | Court misapplied law by overemphasizing historical factors or prior reduction rationale. | No abuse; reliance on §3553(a) factors and prior determinations was within discretion. |
| Role of post-sentencing conduct and offense seriousness in denial | Und regards that seriousness of offense and disciplinary history support denial. | Past conduct should not bar a discretionary reduction where amendments apply. | Proper discretion to consider offense seriousness and disciplinary records supports denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for §3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 1996) (discretion to apply retroactive amendments under §1B1.10)
- United States v. Telman, 28 F.3d 94 (10th Cir. 1994) (reductions discretionary; not mandatory)
- United States v. Lewis, 625 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2010) (FSA retroactivity limitations)