United States v. Randall Char
693 F. App'x 627
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Randall Kawika Char pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).
- District court sentenced Char to 144 months after considering a statutory mandatory minimum and a government motion recognizing Char’s substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).
- The government had recommended a downward departure from 240 months to 120 months (a 10-year reduction) based on Char’s assistance; the court imposed 144 months instead.
- Char initially sought a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on an intervening Guidelines change but later conceded his sentence was not “based on” the Guidelines.
- Char appealed the district court’s handling of the government’s substantial-assistance recommendation and the procedural explanation for the chosen sentence.
- Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, directing the district court to reconsider the government’s § 3553(e) recommendation but prohibiting any increase above 144 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Char was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Char argued sentence should be reduced under § 3582(c)(2) after Guidelines change | Government/district court relied on mandatory minimum and § 3553(e) motion, not Guidelines | Not eligible — sentence was not “based on” Guidelines; Char conceded this issue |
| Whether district court gave adequate procedural explanation for rejecting government’s 10‑year reduction | Char argued court failed to adequately explain why it declined the government’s recommendation | Court treated reduction but did not sufficiently address government’s evaluation or Char’s arguments about rehabilitation | Error — court failed to adequately explain its reasons; procedural remand required |
| Whether court gave substantial weight to government’s assessment of assistance | Char argued government’s assessment deserved substantial weight per § 5K1.1 commentary | Court did not give substantial weight or explain departure from government’s view | Court must reconsider and give proper consideration to government’s evaluation on remand |
| Whether appellate court may enlarge sentence on remand | N/A (Char appealed) | Government did not cross-appeal | Appellate court will not enlarge sentence; remand limited to reconsideration up to 144 months |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (defendant eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief only if sentence was “based on” a lowered Guidelines range)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (appellate court will not increase a defendant’s sentence when only defendant appeals)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must adequately explain chosen sentence)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (judge should normally explain acceptance or rejection of a specific, nonfrivolous argument presented by a party)