United States v. Theresa Calton
900 F.3d 706
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Theresa Calton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine; the PSR attributed 423.07 grams and an adjusted offense level yielding a total offense level of 34 and a Guidelines range of 262–327 months. The district court sentenced her to 262 months.
- The PSR noted career-offender provisions could apply but indicated the drug-quantity offense level controlled because it was higher than the career-offender level.
- Calton filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a reduction based on Amendment 782 (two-level reduction to most drug-based offense levels); the district court denied relief, reasoning she was sentenced as a career offender and thus ineligible.
- Calton filed a successive § 3582(c)(2) motion and a Rule 60 filing; both were denied. She appealed the successive denial and the Rule 60 denial; the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeals.
- The Fifth Circuit addressed (1) whether district courts have jurisdiction to consider successive § 3582(c)(2) motions, (2) which statute supplies appellate jurisdiction for § 3582(c)(2) denials, (3) procedural bars (res judicata/law of the case), and (4) whether Amendment 782 applies to Calton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district courts have jurisdiction to consider successive § 3582(c)(2) motions | Successive motions may be considered; nothing in § 3582(c)(2) limits district-court jurisdiction | Government implied limitation but did not press jurisdictional bar | District courts have jurisdiction to consider successive § 3582(c)(2) motions |
| Proper appellate jurisdictional statute for denial of § 3582(c)(2) motions | Appeals from denials are final orders reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Government argued appeals should proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 | Appeals from denials of § 3582(c)(2) motions lie under § 1291 |
| Whether Calton’s successive motion was procedurally barred by res judicata or law of the case | Successive motion is a step in the same criminal case and not barred | Government argued res judicata or law-of-the-case could preclude relief | Res judicata did not apply; law of the case did not bar review here |
| Whether Amendment 782 applies to Calton and permits a sentence reduction | Amendment 782 applies because PSR and addendum show she was sentenced based on drug-quantity offense level | District court concluded she was sentenced as a career offender and thus ineligible | Court held district court erred; Amendment 782 applies and lowers her Guidelines range from 262–327 to 210–262 months; remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (court must satisfy itself of jurisdiction)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory limitations not jurisdictional unless Congress clearly says so)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (caution against drive-by jurisdictional rulings)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (§ 3582(c)(2) reductions are not full resentencings)
- United States v. Garcia, 606 F.3d 209 (5th Cir.) (district court may have jurisdiction over initial § 3582(c)(2) motion)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416 (3d Cir.) (district courts may consider successive § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Jones, 846 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir.) (denials of § 3582(c)(2) motions are final orders under § 1291)