United States v. Timothy Koons, 850 F.3d 973

Five defendants convicted of methamphetamine conspiracy faced statutory mandatory minimum sentences higher than their initial advisory Guidelines ranges; each received a below‑minimum sentence after the government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)/U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for substantial assistance.
Amendment 782 lowered drug offense base offense levels by two levels, and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) (adopted after Amendment 780) directs courts, in cases involving mandatory minimums with § 3553(e) departures, to determine the amended Guidelines range without regard to § 5G1.1.
Probation calculated amended ranges (disregarding § 5G1.1) that would make the defendants eligible for discretionary sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
District courts denied § 3582(c)(2) motions, concluding the sentences were not "based on" a Guidelines range later lowered because the sentences were founded on statutory mandatory minimums plus substantial assistance.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether § 3582(c)(2) relief is available when an initial sentence below the statutory minimum was imposed via a § 3553(e) departure and the Commission later retroactively reduced Guidelines ranges.

Issue	Government's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether a defendant sentenced below a statutory mandatory minimum pursuant to a § 3553(e)/§ 5K1.1 motion is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief when Amendment 782 later lowers the Guidelines range (per § 1B1.10(c))	§ 1B1.10(c) requires courts to compute the amended Guidelines range without regard to § 5G1.1, making defendants eligible for discretionary reductions consistent with policy statements	The defendants' sentences were "based on" the statutory mandatory minimum and their substantial assistance, not on a Guidelines range; Amendment 782 therefore did not lower the range that actually "based" their sentences	Held: Defendants are not eligible; their sentences were based on statutory mandatory minimums and substantial assistance, not on a subsequently lowered Guidelines range, so § 3582(c)(2) does not apply

Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (interpreting "based on" in § 3582(c)(2) to require a substantive link between the sentence and the basis claimed)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (framework for § 3582(c)(2) analysis)
United States v. Moore, 734 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2013) (held defendant ineligible where sentence was based on statutory minimum)
United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009) (same)
United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2015) (panel majority held § 1B1.10(c) could make such defendants eligible; dissent disagreed)
United States v. Savani, 733 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2013) (adopted approach of using Sentencing Table bottom when initial range was entirely below mandatory minimum)
In re Sealed Case, 722 F.3d 361 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (same approach as Savani)
United States v. Bogdan, 835 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2016) (addressed related threshold issues; court signaled position that such sentences are not based on Guidelines ranges)
United States v. Billue, 576 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.) (district court must start from mandatory minimum when initial Guidelines range is below that minimum)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (agency commentary is controlling unless unconstitutional or contrary to statute)
United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) (agency commentary cannot override statutory text)