United States v. Shamar Banks
698 F. App'x 727
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Banks moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction after the Sentencing Commission’s Amendment 782 lowered guideline ranges.
- Amendment 782 produced an amended guideline bottom of 188 months for Banks.
- Banks’s original sentence had been reduced below the then-applicable guideline range to 168 months pursuant to a Government §5K1.1 substantial-assistance motion.
- The District Court granted a reduction to 168 months (below the amended range) because of the prior substantial-assistance departure, but refused to reduce Banks’s term further below the amended guideline range.
- Banks argued the District Court should have disregarded U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(b)(2) and used the §3553(a) factors to vary below the amended guideline range.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the legal issue de novo and affirmed, holding that the Commission’s policy statement precludes further variances below the amended range except as expressly allowed (e.g., prior Government substantial-assistance departures).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may ignore U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(b)(2) and use 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) to vary a §3582(c)(2) reduction below the amended guideline range | Banks: §1B1.10(b)(2) should not bar consideration of §3553(a) variances below the amended range | Government/District Court: §1B1.10(b)(2) is binding and confines reductions; only the Commission may authorize exceptions (except expressly enumerated ones like prior substantial-assistance) | Affirmed: §1B1.10(b)(2) is binding; courts may not vary below the amended range except as the policy statement permits (no freestanding §3553(a) workaround) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (policy statements constrain §3582(c)(2) reductions)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (binding policy statement limits district court discretion under §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152 (3d Cir.) (procedural context for §3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Berberena, 694 F.3d 514 (3d Cir.) (Third Circuit: Commission permissibly limited availability of below-range reductions)
- United States v. Anderson, 686 F.3d 585 (8th Cir.) (statutory framework does not require Commission to make prior departures/variances available in §3582(c)(2) reductions)