United States v. Robert Mann
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5328
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mann was convicted in 1998 of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (Count 18) and distribution of cocaine (Count 25); conspiracy was dismissed as not at issue.
- Original sentencing tied a base offense level 38 to 1.5+ kg of crack cocaine due to grouping of Counts 18 and 25; Count 25 involved powder cocaine but did not drive the base level.
- Amendments 706/711 lowered crack penalties during 2008, and Amendment 750 (2011) raised the minimum crack quantity to 8.4 kg for a base level 38.
- Mann moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction; district court initially denied, then reconsidered, then on remand the Fourth Circuit vacated its rulings; after Amendment 750, the district court again reduced the sentence.
- The district court concluded Mann was eligible for reduction under § 3582(c)(2) and reduced his sentence; the Government appealed, arguing the district court erred in finding no original finding of 8.4 kg or more and in abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the district court did not clearly err in its original finding and did not abuse its discretion in granting the reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court clearly erred in finding it had no basis to attribute 8.4 kg+ of crack to Mann at sentencing. | Mann | Government | No clear error; court’s interpretation of its own prior findings was reasonable. |
| Whether the district court could make additional findings about drug quantities at resentencing under § 3582(c)(2). | Mann | Government | Not required to make new findings; court’s discretion allowed or disallowed depending on record; no abuse here. |
| Whether Mann was eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) after Amendment 750. | Mann | Government | Yes; reduction consistent with Amendment 750 and § 3553(a) factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1998) (differs when powder and crack are referenced for sentencing within a single count or grouping)
- United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2000) (deference to court’s interpretation of its own orders in § 3582(c)(2) context)
- Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Ruben, 957 F.2d 126 (4th Cir. 1992) (analysis of the sentencing court’s familiarity with the record)
- United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) (courts need not engage in de novo factual determinations in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- Dillon v. United States, 570 U.S. _ (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) limited adjustment, not plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Henry, 538 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2008) (intimate familiarity with record supports deferential review)