United States v. Shafer, 3:00-cr-03006-LTS-KEM

Defendant Jaimy John Christenson was sentenced as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 for drug convictions and is serving a term of imprisonment.
The Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, generally lowering base offense levels in the drug quantity tables by two levels, and designated it for retroactive application effective November 1, 2014.
18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) permits sentence reductions when a defendant’s guideline range is later lowered by the Commission and such reduction is consistent with USSG §1B1.10.
USSG §1B1.10 implements §3582(c)(2) and prescribes how to determine eligibility and the extent of any reduction; it also contains timing and other limiting provisions.
The court considered on its own motion whether Amendment 782 could reduce Christenson’s sentence but concluded his guideline range was determined by the career-offender provision, not the drug-quantity table.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 782 can be used to reduce Christenson’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2)	Amendment 782 was made retroactive; therefore eligible defendants may receive reductions consistent with USSG §1B1.10	Christenson argued (or would argue) that Amendment 782 lowers the relevant guideline range and thus permits a reduction	Denied: Christenson is ineligible because his sentence was driven by career-offender status under USSG §4B1.1, so Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable range
Whether the court must appoint counsel or hold a hearing before ruling on the §3582(c)(2) motion	The government did not argue counsel/hearing required for a court-initiated §3582(c)(2) review	Christenson’s presence or counsel unnecessary given record and Eighth Circuit precedent	Court found appointment of counsel and a hearing unnecessary; sufficient explanation provided for review

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (authorizing limited sentence adjustments under §3582(c)(2))
United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268 (8th Cir. 1993) (§3582(c)(2) permits reductions when guideline range is later lowered)
United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir.) (discussing USSG §1B1.10(b) requirements)
United States v. Reeves, 717 F.3d 647 (8th Cir.) (career-offender status and eligibility for §3582 relief)
United States v. Collier, 581 F.3d 755 (8th Cir.) (relief unavailable to those sentenced under USSG §4B1.1)
United States v. Clay, 524 F.3d 877 (8th Cir.) (defendant ineligible for §3582(c)(2) when career-offender provision determined range)