United States v. Thomas Payne, 687 F. App'x 447

Payne pleaded guilty to counts for distributing and conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and received a substantial downward variance from the guidelines.
The Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 759 (reducing drug‑quantity offense levels) and made it retroactive for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
Amendment 759’s accompanying policy statement (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)) barred district courts from reducing a sentence below the amended guidelines range unless the original below‑guidelines sentence was due to a government motion for substantial assistance.
Payne, who had not received a substantial‑assistance‑based reduction initially, moved for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction; the district court denied relief as unavailable and said it would likely decline relief even if eligible.
On appeal Payne argued Amendment 759 was unlawful: the Commission’s policy statements must comply with the APA’s notice‑and‑comment rules and Amendment 759 is arbitrary and capricious; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the court lacked authority to grant § 3582(c)(2) relief.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the policy statement governs eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief and the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements are not subject to the APA’s rulemaking requirements unless Congress so directed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 759 must comply with the APA notice‑and‑comment rulemaking	Payne: Commission policy statements are binding and therefore subject to APA rulemaking	Government: Policy statements are not subject to APA unless Congress explicitly required	Held: Policy statements need not follow APA rulemaking absent explicit congressional directive
Whether Amendment 759 is arbitrary and capricious under the APA	Payne: Even if not subject to APA, district court should ignore the policy statement as arbitrary	Payne: same as plaintiff	Held: Court rejected APA challenge because APA does not apply to these policy statements in this context
Whether Payne was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction below the amended range	Payne: Eligible for a reduction notwithstanding the policy statement	Government/District Court: Ineligible because the original below‑guidelines sentence was not based on substantial assistance	Held: Payne ineligible under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2); district court lacked authority to reduce the sentence further
Whether the district court abused discretion in declining to grant relief even if eligible	Payne: District court should have granted relief on other equitable grounds	District Court: Previously granted an extraordinary >50% downward variance; would likely deny further reduction	Held: Court did not reach abuse‑of‑discretion issue because Payne was ineligible; affirmed denial

United States v. Taylor, 815 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility)
United States v. Horn, 679 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2012) (Congress may limit procedural requirements placed on an agency)
United States v. Maiello, 805 F.3d 992 (11th Cir. 2015) (Sentencing Commission policy statements not subject to APA absent explicit congressional direction)
United States v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not constitutionally compelled)
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) (courts may not impose additional procedural requirements on agencies beyond statute)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (discussion of sentence‑modification framework under § 3582)