United States v. Santiago, 1:03-cr-00025

Defendant Robert Santiago previously sentenced for a drug-trafficking offense that carried a statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
The court considered on its own motion whether Santiago’s sentence could be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following Sentencing Commission changes.
The Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 782 (reducing certain drug offense base levels by two) and later designated it retroactive effective November 1, 2014, subject to implementation timing limits in USSG §1B1.10(e)(1).
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG §1B1.10 permit sentence reductions only when an amendment listed by the Commission lowers the guideline range and is applicable to the defendant.
Because Santiago is subject to a statutory mandatory minimum, the court found Amendment 782 could not produce a reduction in his sentence under § 3582(c)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may reduce Santiago’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782	Gov: Amendment 782 was made retroactive by the Commission, permitting reductions when applicable	Santiago: Amendment 782 should lower his guideline range and permit a reduction	Denied — statutory mandatory minimum controls; Amendment 782 cannot reduce the sentence
Whether USSG §1B1.10 procedural limits prevent relief	Gov: §1B1.10 governs retroactivity and required timing; relief only if consistent with policy statement	Santiago: (implicit) he is eligible if guideline range lowered	Court: §1B1.10 applies; timing and policy limits considered but outcome controlled by statutory minimum
Need for counsel or a hearing before ruling on § 3582(c)(2) relief	Gov: no necessity to appoint counsel or hold hearing in this record	Santiago: no asserted right to counsel/hearing	Court: No appointment or hearing required; record sufficient for decision
Whether the Sentencing Commission’s retroactivity designation alone overcomes statutory minimums	Gov: retroactivity allows courts to consider reductions where applicable	Santiago: retroactivity should apply to him	Court: Retroactivity does not override statutory mandatory minimums; reduction not justified

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (explaining § 3582(c)(2) permits limited sentence adjustments, not plenary resentencing)
United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268 (8th Cir. 1993) (describing § 3582(c)(2) as permitting reductions when guideline range is subsequently lowered)
United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing §1B1.10(b) requirements for sentence reduction)
United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 1997) (interpreting procedural limits on § 3582 relief)
United States v. Bowman, [citation="507 F. App'x 623"] (8th Cir. 2013) (statutory mandatory minimum precluded reduction under guideline amendment)
United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008) (same: statutory minimum prevents § 3582(c)(2) relief)
United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2008) (same principle)
United States v. Byers, 561 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009) (statutory minimum must be considered when evaluating reductions)
United States v. Harris, 568 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2009) (no right to counsel for § 3582(c) relief and hearings not always required)
United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (appellate review requires sufficient explanation of district court reasoning)