United States v. Ronnie Benson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10753
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Benson was convicted in 1997 of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, involving cocaine, cocaine base (crack), and marijuana.
- USSG § 2D1.1 and its marijuana-equivalency rules, along with PSR calculations, credited Benson with 15,325.48 kilograms of marijuana equivalent.
- At sentencing, Benson’s counsel objected to the PSR quantity (advocating about 14,000 kg), the district court adopted the PSR quantity, and Benson was found to have base offense level 36, with an additional obstruction adjustment, resulting in a total offense level 38 and a guideline range that produced a 360-month sentence for the conspiracy charge (concurrent with a 51-month sentence on the other count).
- In 2008, the district court reduced Benson’s sentence under Amendments 706 and 1B1.10, concluding the amended quantity would fall below 10,000 kg and reducing the base offense level to 34, yielding a 292-month sentence.
- Benson moved in 2011 for another reduction under Amendments 750 and 759; the district court denied, finding no evidence that Benson was responsible for fewer than 3,000 kg of marijuana equivalent, and Benson appealed challenging the district court’s handling of § 3582(c)(2) and the evidence necessary to support a reduction.
- The majority affirming denial held that the record did not show Benson responsible for less than 3,000 kg and that the movant bears the burden to prove reductions; the dissent would remand for further findings on the precise drug-quantity attributable to Benson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benson is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. | Benson argues Amendments 750/759 reduce his base level. | Government contends there is insufficient record to reduce. | Not eligible; no proven reduction due to lack of quantity evidence. |
| Who bears the burden to prove quantity for § 3582(c)(2) relief. | Benson asserts the government must prove the baseline quantity breakdown. | Government asserts movant must prove eligibility; lack of proof defeats relief. | The movant bears burden to show eligibility; failure to prove quantity defeats relief. |
| Must the district court conduct an evidentiary reconstruction of quantities under retroactive amendments. | Record may permit reconstructing cocaine-base quantities from trial testimony. | No plenary resentencing; court need only follow amendments if evidence supports a lower range. | Not required to conduct a new, full evidentiary reconstruction absent supporting record. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Binges, 917 F.2d 1133 (8th Cir. 1990) (burden-shifting framework for eligibility under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Hardiman, 469 Fed. Appx. 476 (7th Cir. 2012) (lack of record specifics precludes § 3582 relief)
- United States v. Wingo, 429 Fed. Appx. 549 (6th Cir. 2011) (no post-conviction “new” quantity unless record supports it)
- Adkins v. United States, 466 Fed. Appx. 302 (4th Cir. 2012) (remanding for additional findings on quantity when retroactivity applies)
- Dillon v. United States, — S. Ct. — (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) limited adjustment, not plenary resentencing)
- Davis v. United States, 682 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2012) (district court may consider full record to determine quantity)
- Duncan v. United States, 639 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2011) (new findings may be necessary to support retroactive amendments)
- Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2000) (administrative-law-like duties in evidence development)
- Burrell v. United States, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (consideration of § 3553(a) factors and limitations on relief)