United States v. Rollins
17-1226
| 10th Cir. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Shawn La’Velle Rollins pleaded guilty (2007) to six counts of bank robbery and was sentenced as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1, with an agreed offense level of 29 and Criminal History Category VI, producing a guideline range of 151–188 months; court imposed 188 months.
- In March 2017 Rollins moved under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence relying on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 798, which removed the residual clause from the career-offender crime-of-violence definition.
- Rollins argued Amendment 798 should apply retroactively to strip two prior Colorado escape convictions of crime-of-violence status and thus eliminate his career-offender classification.
- The government opposed, noting Amendment 798 was not listed as retroactive in USSG §1B1.10(d), and the district court denied relief relying on the government’s response.
- Rollins appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s authority de novo and denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed because Amendment 798 is not retroactive under the Commission’s policy statement.
Issues
| Issue | Rollins' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 798 applies retroactively to allow relief under §3582(c)(2) | Teague requires retroactivity; Amendment 798 should be applied to his sentence reduction motion | Amendment 798 is not listed in USSG §1B1.10(d); §3582(c)(2) relief must be consistent with the Commission’s retroactivity list | Denied — Amendment 798 is not retroactive under §1B1.10 and thus Rollins is ineligible for §3582(c)(2) relief |
| Whether Teague v. Lane requires retroactivity of Guidelines amendments | Teague’s retroactivity framework applies to new constitutional rules, so it mandates retroactive application here | Teague does not apply to non-constitutional Guidelines amendments; Supreme Court has rejected a constitutional retroactivity mandate for Guidelines amendments | Denied — Teague applies to constitutional rule changes, not Guidelines amendments; Dillon forecloses Rollins’s argument |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the §3582(c)(2) motion | Rollins contends district court should have reduced sentence if Amendment 798 changed career-offender status | Government contends district court properly denied because policy statement bars relief absent Commission retroactivity designation | No abuse of discretion — denial affirmed |
| Whether Rollins may proceed IFP on appeal | IFP necessary for appeal; motion presented | Government/ Court argue appeal is frivolous given settled law | Denied — appeal frivolous; IFP denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework limiting retroactivity of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (no constitutional requirement that defendants receive benefit of later Guidelines amendments)
- United States v. Chavez-Meza, 854 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for §3582(c)(2) authority and denial)
- United States v. Verdin-Garcia, 824 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2016) (§3582(c)(2) relief is an act of lenity, not constitutionally compelled)
- Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard for determining frivolous appeals for IFP purposes)