United States v. Stephen Banks
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20661
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Banks pled guilty in 2005 to conspiracy to distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride; more than 1.5 kg of crack involved.
- Original base offense level was 38 under § 2D1.1; § 4B1.1 career offender provisions could raise or lower the base depending on comparison, resulting in applicability only if higher.
- District court sentenced Banks under § 2D1.1 after accepting government arguments for reductions for acceptance of responsibility and substantial assistance, yielding 195 months.
- In 2008 crack amendments lowered 2D1.1 levels; Banks moved under § 3582(c)(2); court resentenced starting from § 4B1.1 range, producing 175 months, later reduced to 144 months for further substantial assistance.
- Amendment 750 lowered crack guidelines again; Banks sought another § 3582 reduction, which the district court denied because his current sentence was based on § 4B1.1.
- The district court and the court of appeals concluded Banks’s § 3582 jurisdiction does not apply since his current sentence is governed by the career offender provisions, which are not subject to Amendment 750 reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Banks can obtain another § 3582(c)(2) reduction after being resentenced under § 4B1.1. | Banks argues the amendment lowers the § 2D1.1 range and § 3582(c)(2) should apply. | Banks contends the district court had authority to reduce again due to Amendment 750. | No; once under § 4B1.1, reductions do not apply. |
| What sentencing range is the basis for Banks’s current sentence for § 3582 purposes. | Banks asserts the original § 2D1.1 range controls. | Responding court held the current range under § 4B1.1 governs for § 3582 purposes. | Current sentence is based on § 4B1.1, not the original § 2D1.1 range. |
| Does the career-offender status preclude § 3582 reductions under Amendment 750. | Banks was not originally sentenced as a career offender, so he should be eligible. | Once § 4B1.1 applied, Amendment 750 does not apply. | Yes; career-offender framework precludes § 3582 reductions. |
| Does Banks’s plea agreement preclude career-offender treatment for sentencing. | Banks believes the plea precludes § 4B1.1 application. | Plea agreement concerns § 851 enhancements, not § 4B1.1 incarceration framework. | Plea agreement does not foreclose § 4B1.1 application. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2010) (when Amendment 706 lowers 2D1.1 below 4B1.1, § 4B1.1 controls the sentence)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (S. Ct. 2010) (two-step inquiry for § 3582(c)(2) reductions; policy statements guide final decision)
- United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2010) (crack amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (Sotomayor concurrence; narrow basis for Freeman-related relief)