United States v. Quintanilla
868 F.3d 315
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Seventeen consolidated criminal appeals where each defendant was convicted of drug offenses and also qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
- In every case the § 4B1.1 career-offender guideline produced a higher starting offense level than the § 2D1.1 drug-quantity guideline, and district courts originally sentenced using the higher § 4B1.1 range.
- After sentencing, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014), lowering offense levels under § 2D1.1 by two levels and made the amendment retroactive.
- Defendants moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1) for two-level reductions based on Amendment 782; district courts granted reductions finding sentences were “based on” § 2D1.1.
- The government appealed, arguing the sentences were “based on” the higher § 4B1.1 career-offender range and thus not eligible for relief because Amendment 782 did not lower § 4B1.1.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed: where the career-offender range in § 4B1.1 is higher and applied, the sentence is “based on” § 4B1.1 and § 3582(c)(2)/§ 1B1.10 relief under Amendment 782 is not available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant sentenced under a higher § 4B1.1 career-offender range is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 782 to § 2D1.1 | Gov: sentences were based on § 4B1.1; Amendment 782 did not lower that range, so no relief | Defendants: sentence is still “based on” § 2D1.1 because district courts considered the drug guideline when departing downward; § 3582(c)(2)’s “based on” is broad enough to cover such reductions | Held: Sentences were based on § 4B1.1; Amendment 782 did not lower that guideline; § 3582(c)(2)/§ 1B1.10 relief unavailable; district courts lacked authority and abused discretion in granting reductions |
| Whether Freeman (plea-agreement context) and other circuit authority support treating a sentence as "based on" § 2D1.1 despite a higher § 4B1.1 range | Defendants: Freeman and some decisions permit considering parties’ and court’s reliance on § 2D1.1 when assessing what a sentence was "based on" | Gov: Freeman is inapposite (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea context); precedent in Fifth Circuit (Anderson, Banks) requires looking to the highest applicable guideline range | Held: Freeman inapplicable; Fifth Circuit precedent controls—look to the highest guideline applicable; Freeman does not authorize relief here |
| Whether collateral doctrinal distinctions (original vs. current controlling guideline at time of resentencing) permit reduction | Defendants: statutory text of § 3582(c)(2) is broader than § 1B1.10; original reliance on § 2D1.1 matters | Gov: Under Fifth Circuit law courts consider the guideline range "applicable to that defendant" at the time and the controlling (higher) range governs eligibility | Held: Fifth Circuit treats the highest applicable guideline as the controlling baseline; original reliance on § 2D1.1 does not create entitlement to an Amendment 782 reduction when § 4B1.1 controlled |
| Whether a grouped-count/ multiple-count sentencing nuance (Cooksey) changes the analysis | Cooksey: one group’s base offense level derived from § 2D1.1; argues reduction should apply to both counts/groups | Gov: Overall sentence was governed by higher § 4B1.1 career-offender range | Held: Same rule applies; Cooksey not entitled to reduction on any count because sentence was ‘‘based on’’ § 4B1.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (plea-agreement context addressing when an agreed sentence is "based on" Guidelines)
- United States v. Banks, 770 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2014) (controls that the guideline range "applicable to that defendant" is the highest applicable range at the time and governs § 3582 analysis)
- United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2009) (earlier Fifth Circuit rule excluding career-offender sentenced defendants from § 3582 relief when amendment affects only § 2D1.1)
- United States v. Caraballo, 552 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008) (circuit precedent treating career-offender sentencing as precluding § 3582 reductions when amendment does not lower § 4B1.1)