United States v. Ramsey
16-6268
| 10th Cir. | Feb 8, 2017Background
- Jesse Ramsey was convicted for using a communications facility to facilitate acquisition of cocaine base and sentenced to 96 months. He previously sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (denied) and obtained a § 3582(c)(2) reduction to 84 months after Amendment 782.
- Ramsey moved pro se under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)–(c), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking a further reduction based on Sentencing Commission Amendment 794 (revision to commentary on § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustments).
- The district court dismissed Ramsey’s § 3582(c)(2)/Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction because Amendment 794 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).
- Ramsey argued Amendment 794 should be applied retroactively or is clarifying; he pointed to other circuits’ decisions applying the amendment on direct appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding § 3582(c)(2) jurisdiction only exists when the amendment appears in § 1B1.10(d); Rule 60(b) is not an independent source of criminal jurisdiction; recharacterizing the motion as a successive § 2255 motion would be futile because Ramsey could not meet § 2255(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a sentence reduction based on Amendment 794 | Ramsey: Amendment 794 supports a § 3582(c)(2) reduction (retroactive/clarifying) | Government: § 3582(c)(2) relief only available for amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) | Held: No jurisdiction under § 3582(c)(2); Amendment 794 not listed in § 1B1.10(d) |
| Whether the clarifying vs. substantive nature of Amendment 794 matters for § 3582(c)(2) relief | Ramsey: Amendment 794 is clarifying and should apply retroactively | Government: Clarifying/substantive distinction concerns correctness of original sentence, not availability of § 3582(c)(2) relief | Held: Distinction irrelevant to § 3582(c)(2); court need not decide whether amendment is clarifying |
| Whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides jurisdiction to challenge a criminal sentence | Ramsey: Relied on Rule 60(b) as basis for relief | Government: Rule 60(b) does not create jurisdiction in criminal cases | Held: Rule 60(b) is not an independent source of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings |
| Whether the court should recharacterize the motion as a successive § 2255 petition | Ramsey: Motion could be treated as successive § 2255 | Government: Recharacterization would be futile because § 2255(h) requirements unmet | Held: Declined to recharacterize; Ramsey cannot satisfy § 2255(h) so recharacterization would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: de novo review of § 3582(c)(2) application)
- United States v. Torres-Aquino, 334 F.3d 939 (10th Cir. 2003) (§ 3582(c)(2) relief limited to amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d); clarifying/substantive distinction not dispositive for § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 1996) (district court may modify sentence only when Congress expressly authorizes)
- United States v. Avila, 997 F.2d 767 (10th Cir. 1993) (same: § 3582(c)(2) limited by § 1B1.10(d))
- United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Amendment 794 on direct appeal)
- United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016) (applying Amendment 794 on direct appeal)