United States v. Tanesha Holder
981 F.3d 647
8th Cir.2020Background
- In 2008 Holder pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base; she admitted responsibility for ≥1.5 kg but the PSR attributed ~8.95 kg.
- At original sentencing the district court adopted the PSR, found a Guidelines range greater than the career-offender range (360 months–life), and varied downward to 300 months.
- In 2014 the court granted a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under retroactive Amendment 782, stating an amended Guidelines range of 292–365 months (offense level 35) and reduced Holder’s term to 292 months.
- Under the First Step Act § 404 Holder became eligible for retroactive Fair Sentencing Act relief; she requested recalculation of her amended Guidelines range (arguing a 4.5 kg finding yields base level 34 and a different amended range) and resentencing under career-offender provisions.
- The district court denied First Step Act relief, reasoning drug quantity and criminal history, not the statutory minimum changed by the Fair Sentencing Act, drove the original sentence; it did not resolve the contested recalculation of the amended Amendment 782 range.
- The Eighth Circuit agreed the district court exercised discretion under the First Step Act but held the court erred procedurally by miscalculating (or failing to resolve) the correct amended Guidelines range and remanded for resentencing because harmlessness of the error could not be assured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused/failed to exercise discretion under First Step Act §404 | Holder: court failed to recognize and apply full §3553(a) factors and First Step Act discretion | Government/court: district court did exercise discretion; it considered relevant factors and declined relief | Court: No abuse — district court sufficiently recognized and exercised discretion; prior Eighth Circuit precedent controls |
| Whether the court must determine the Fair Sentencing Act–amended Guidelines range before deciding First Step Act relief | Holder: court must recalculate amended Guidelines (including career-offender analysis) before denying relief | Government: district court need not correct the amended Guidelines to deny relief; relief requested exceeds First Step Act | Court: First Step Act requires the court to determine the amended Guidelines range first; failure to do so is procedural error |
| Whether the district court miscalculated the amended Amendment 782 Guidelines range | Holder: prior findings support a lower base offense level (level 34) and a lower amended range (262–327 months) | Government: response unclear/coherent; appears to resist conceding recalculation | Court: District court’s prior 2014 calculation (level 35; 292–365) was erroneous or at least not resolved; error requires remand to allow recalculation and reassessment |
| Whether the Guidelines error was harmless | Holder: recalculation could change the amended range and affect the court’s substantial variance/ discretionary decision | Government: argued district court would deny relief regardless (drug quantity/history drove sentence) | Court: Not harmless under Molina‑Martinez standard; remand required because reasonable probability exists that correct range might have affected outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banks, 960 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act discretion and eligibility analysis)
- United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act eligibility principles)
- United States v. Harris, 908 F.3d 1151 (8th Cir. 2018) (harmless‑error caution for Guidelines mistakes)
- United States v. Booker, 974 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2020) (district court must expressly recognize and exercise discretion under First Step Act)
- United States v. Hoskins, 973 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not mandate §3553 analysis but requires exercise of discretion)
- United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2020) (appellate standard for assessing district court’s exercise of First Step Act discretion)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review standard for reasoned basis in sentencing)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (retroactivity of Fair Sentencing Act to post‑Act, pre‑Dorsey sentences)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (Guidelines range errors are often prejudicial; harmless‑error framework)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (harmless‑error and appellate caution in assuming district court outcome)