United States v. Sean T. Baxter
679 F. App'x 928
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Five defendants (Cano, Hernandez, Baxter, Garcia, Penaloza-Benitez) convicted of various drug offenses; PSRs used U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to calculate base offense levels.
- At original sentencings four defendants received downward variances (not for substantial assistance); one (Garcia) received a downward departure for criminal history and was sentenced within the guideline range.
- Amendment 782 (made retroactive by Amendment 788) lowered most drug offense base offense levels; each defendant moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction and sought a variance below the amended guideline range comparable to their original variances.
- District courts either denied or partially granted relief: where the amended guideline minimum was below the original sentence courts reduced to the new minimum but refused to go below it; where original sentence equaled or was below the amended minimum, courts denied relief.
- District courts relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (as amended by Amendment 759) which bars resentencing below the amended guideline range except for substantial assistance.
- Eleventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed the district courts’ denials/partial denials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may reduce a sentence below the low end of the amended guideline range under § 3582(c)(2) when the original sentence included a variance | Defendants: court should be allowed to impose the same downward variance as at original sentencing | Government/District courts: § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) bars reducing below the amended range except for substantial assistance | Court: § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) properly prohibits reductions below amended guideline minimum absent substantial assistance; affirmed |
| Whether Amendment 759’s amendment to § 1B1.10(b)(2) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Defendants: applying the post‑Amendment restriction to bar variance reimposition is ex post facto | Government: restriction is permissible and does not impose a harsher retroactive punishment | Court: Colon controls; no Ex Post Facto violation; defendants’ argument foreclosed |
| Whether Amendment 759 exceeds the Sentencing Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) or violates separation of powers | Defendants: Commission lacked authority / amendment improperly limits judicial sentencing discretion | Government: Commission acted within its authority to promote uniformity and reduce litigation | Court: Colon controls; Commission acted within authority and separation‑of‑powers challenge fails |
| Whether Peugh undermines Colon and permits defendants’ challenges to Amendment 759 | Defendants: Peugh implies Ex Post Facto issues that cast doubt on Colon | Government/District courts: Peugh does not overrule or conflict with Colon’s holding about § 1B1.10(b)(2) | Court: Peugh does not conflict with Colon; Colon remains binding precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (upholding Amendment 759’s restriction on resentencing below amended guideline minimum and rejecting Ex Post Facto, separation‑of‑powers, and § 994(u) challenges)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (Supreme Court holding Ex Post Facto Clause bars sentencing under a later, harsher Guidelines regime)
- United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: de novo review of legal conclusions about district court authority under § 3582(c)(2))