United States v. Thomas Siracuse
661 F. App'x 993
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Siracuse pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to import at least 3,000 kg but less than 10,000 kg of marijuana; PSR set total offense level 35, Criminal History I, guideline range 168–210 months.
- Parties agreed at sentencing to credit Siracuse with 40 months he served in Switzerland; they asked the court to vary downward from 168 to 128 months; the court imposed 128 months.
- Shortly after sentencing the government moved under Rule 35 for substantial assistance; the court granted a 25% reduction, lowering the sentence to 96 months.
- Amendment 782 later reduced base offense levels by two, which would amend Siracuse’s guideline range to 135–168 months; Siracuse sought a § 3582(c)(2) reduction to account for the 40-month credit plus the Rule 35 reduction.
- The district court denied relief, holding the 40-month reduction was a downward variance (not a §5G1.3 relevant-conduct adjustment or a substantial-assistance reduction) and thus could not be re-applied in §3582(c)(2) proceedings; it applied a comparable Rule 35 reduction, yielding a floor of 101 months, which is above Siracuse’s 96-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Siracuse is eligible for a §3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 | Amendment 782 lowered the guideline range and thus entitles Siracuse to a reduced sentence | Same — Siracuse contends the prior 40‑month credit should be applied to the amended range, producing 71 months after Rule 35 reduction | Court: Siracuse is not eligible for additional reduction; amended range is 135–168 and after a comparable Rule 35 reduction the low end is 101 months, above the imposed 96 months |
| Whether the 40‑month credit at sentencing was a §5G1.3 relevant‑conduct adjustment or merely a downward variance | Siracuse asserts the 40‑month credit reflected relevant conduct and should be re-applied | Government/district court: the record shows the parties agreed a downward variance to account for Swiss time; §5G1.3 did not apply and no relevant‑conduct finding was made | Court: The 40‑month award was a variance, not a §5G1.3 adjustment, so it cannot be reinstated in a §3582(c)(2) proceeding |
| Whether the district court improperly made new factual findings about relevance of Swiss offenses in the §3582(c)(2) proceeding | Siracuse contends the court impermissibly made new fact findings denying relevancy | District court treated lack of evidence of relevant conduct as affirming that no §5G1.3 adjustment had been made at sentencing | Court: No impermissible new findings; record lacks evidence that Swiss offenses were found to be relevant conduct at sentencing |
| Whether the court could reduce below the amended range to account for the original downward variance | Siracuse argues equity and prior practice warrant reapplication of the 40‑month reduction | Government argues policy and §1B1.10 prohibit reducing below the amended range for a non‑substantial‑assistance variance | Court: §1B1.10 forbids accounting for a prior downward variance that was not a substantial‑assistance reduction; Siracuse abandoned equitable argument |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for §3582(c)(2) legal questions)
- United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2005) (review standard for factual findings)
- United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2000) (consider only guideline amendment effect in §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (framework for §3582(c)(2) sentence modifications)
- United States v. Marroquin-Medina, 817 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.) (permitting a comparable percentage‑based substantial‑assistance reduction under §1B1.10)
- United States v. Durham, 795 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir.) (arguments raised only in reply brief may be forfeited)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (issues not plainly and prominently raised are abandoned)