United States v. Redd
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Redd was convicted in 2005 of distributing crack cocaine and sentenced to 405 months.
- The 2007 crack guideline reductions (Amendment 706) and retroactive relief (Amendment 712, 2008) lowered ranges for § 3582(c)(2) motions.
- Redd obtained a district court reduction to 327 months under § 3582(c)(2) but did not appeal that ruling.
- Ten months later, Redd filed a document titled Motion for Reconsideration or Alternatively Renewed Motion for Modification of Sentence in the district court.
- The district court denied the motion; Redd appealed challenging the status and effect of his new motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filing was a valid reconsideration or a new § 3582(c)(2) motion | Redd treated it as a § 3582(c)(2) request for a further reduction. | The filing was a new § 3582(c)(2) motion after the time to appeal; proper reconsideration timing applied. | The filing was a new § 3582(c)(2) motion and untimely for reconsideration. |
| Whether a district court retains authority to modify a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) after a retroactive Guideline amendment | § 3582(c)(2) gives ongoing power to adjust sentences post-amendment. | Authority is limited to implementing the Commission's retroactive changes; not a continuing power to reduce indefinitely. | District court authority is limited to the Commission's retroactive changes; not a perpetual power. |
| Whether law-of-the-case or precedent forecloses successive § 3582(c)(2) requests | Previous opinions may not bar renewed requests after new Guideline changes. | Norms like law of the case apply; successive requests are foreclosed absent new changes. | Rule-based constraints and statute limit further § 3582(c)(2) requests; no belated appeal allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75 (1964) (new motions for reconsideration must be within appeal period)
- United States v. Rollins, 607 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2010) (timeliness of reconsideration and § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Smith, 438 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2006) (limitations on post-sentencing modification under § 3582(c))
- Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (pre-guidelines authority to modify sentences within 120 days)
- United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case considerations in successive requests)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (statutory interpretation and nonapplication of improper common-law doctrines)