United States v. Smiti Liberse
688 F.3d 1198
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Liberse was sentenced in 2006 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine; the PSR attributed 50–150 grams and established a 120-month statutory minimum with a guideline range of 121–151 months.
- Liberse’s original sentence was 121 months, at the bottom of the then-applicable 121–151 month range, because the 120-month minimum did not reduce the guideline floor.
- A Rule 35(b) substantial-assistance reduction reduced Liberse’s sentence to 97 months, below both the original guideline range and the statutory minimum then applicable.
- The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised minimums for crack offenses and directed the Commission to adjust guidelines to reflect consistency with law; Amendments 750 and 759 were enacted to implement these changes, with 759 retroactively applying Amendment 750.
- Liberse filed a pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion arguing Amendment 750 lowered his guideline range to 70–87 months, warranting a discretionary reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
- The district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority because the statutory minimum remained the governing sentence and the Commission could not alter that minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Amendment 750 lower the defendant’s guidelines range for §3582(c)(2) relief? | Liberse’s range lowered to 70–87 months after Amendment 750. | The minimum 120-month sentence remained unchanged by the amendment. | Yes; Amendment 750 lowers the range, giving discretion to reduce under §3582(c)(2). |
| What is the proper treatment of the Fair Sentencing Act in §3582(c)(2) proceedings for pre-act defendants? | Act may apply to determine the governing minimum and range. | Act may not apply or its applicability is unclear for pre-act sentences. | Remand to decide applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act in light of Dorsey. |
| May a reduction below the amended range be appropriate due to substantial-assistance motions? | Rule 35(b) reduction supports a further reduction under §1B1.10(b)(2)(B). | Reductions must track the amended range unless an exception applies. | Yes; the substantial-assistance exception supports a reduction below the amended range; remand for district court to determine extent. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008) (defendant can be resentenced when the sentencing range is lowered)
- United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2010) (guideline amendments may or may not affect §3582(c)(2) depending on range)
- United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2000) (district court may reduce sentence when originally based on lowered guidelines range)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (Fair Sentencing Act applies to conforming guidelines amendments)
- United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008) (where amendment lowers range but minimum remains, no §3582 relief)
- United States v. Glover, — (—) (discussed as principle that amendment must lower range to permit relief (official reporter needed))