United States v. Owen Dunn
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18594
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dunn appeals district court's denial of a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction request.
- Dunn is serving a 100-month crack cocaine sentence; amended Guidelines would yield 77–96 months.
- Amendments 748 and 750 retroactive; FSA changes reduce crack penalties; Dunn sought 17-month reduction.
- District court denied reduction after considering § 3553(a) factors; Probation and Government opposed.
- This appeal engages jurisdictional questions post-Dillon; Colson holds § 3582(c)(2) decisions are reviewable for abuse of discretion.
- Panel affirms district court's denial; Dunn argues factors favor reduced sentence and miscounts of history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review §3582(c)(2) decisions | Dunn relies on Colson for §1291 review of §3582(c)(2). | Dillon limits review; appellate jurisdiction is unclear. | We have jurisdiction, following Colson; Dillon not clearly irreconcilable. |
| Dillon’s relevance to review standard | Dillon extends Booker reasoning to review for reasonableness at step two. | Dillon limits to eligibility within §1B1.10; does not apply to reasonableness review. | Dillon does not disturb reasonableness review under Booker-Colson framework. |
| Discretionary denial of §3582(c)(2) reduction merits | §3553(a) factors favor reduction due to Dunn's positives. | Court properly weighed factors; no abuse of discretion. | No abuse; district court reasonably weighed §3553(a) factors. |
| Consideration of criminal history in §3582(c)(2) | Criminal history already reflected in amended range; should not override. | Criminal history remains a relevant factor under §3553(a). | District court may consider criminal history; no error. |
| Effect of agreement miscalculation and 77–96 month range | Original miscalculation should not bar reduction; 83 months requested aligns with amended range. | Reducing below 77 months would violate the amended floor. | Reduction denied; would breach the amended guideline floor. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Colson, 573 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2009) (reviews §3582(c)(2) decisions for abuse of discretion)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc; when intervening authority requires reconsideration of precedents)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (S. Ct. 2010) (two-step §3582(c)(2) inquiry; eligibility and discretion)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness review after Booker)
- United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2011) (guidelines floors and §1B1.10 considerations)