United States v. Steele
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9397
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Steele was convicted by a jury in 2006 for crack cocaine conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute.
- At sentencing, Steele’s criminal history category was VI; the district court downwardly departed to category V.
- Upon resentencing, Steele again received a downward departure to CHC V, and a 151-month sentence was imposed and affirmed on appeal.
- Amendment 750 (retroactive) lowered crack-cocaine base offense levels; Steele moved for resentencing under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10.
- The district court resentenced using the pre-departure range and declined to apply the prior CHC VI-to-V departure.
- Question presented: whether resentencing under § 3582(c)(2) may grant the same downward departure from the amended range that was previously awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1B1.10 and §3582(c)(2) allow downward departure from the amended range | Steele argues past departures may be reapplied. | Government argues only the government-motion departure for substantial assistance is permissible. | No; only departures based on substantial assistance may be used. |
| How to determine the 'applicable' amended guideline range | Range should reflect pre-amendment departure decisions. | Range is the pre-departure range under amended policy statements. | The applicable range is the pre-departure amended range, without considering prior departures. |
| Whether previous CHC VI→V departure can influence the new range | Original departure should affect resentencing. | Amendment 759 precludes re-applying departures from original sentencing. | Departures from the original sentencing cannot be reapplied absent substantial-assistance motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rivera, 662 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (defined 'applicable' range prior to amendments; later clarified by amendments)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 652 (Supreme Court 2010) (limits plenary resentencing under §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Berberena, 694 F.3d 514 (3d Cir. 2012) (restricts downward departure below amended range unless substantial assistance)
- United States v. Valdez, 492 F. App’x 895 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding on substantial-assistance exception to departures)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 1993) (authoritative interpretive guidelines in the Sentencing Guidelines)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (Supreme Court 1994) (presumption of consistent meaning of terms across statute)