868 F.3d 315
5th Cir.2017Background
- Seventeen consolidated appeals challenge district-court sentence reductions granted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (a two-level drug-quantity reduction).
- Each defendant was convicted of a drug offense and also qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1; in every case the § 4B1.1 career-offender range was higher than the § 2D1.1 drug-quantity range.
- At original sentencing the district courts started with the higher § 4B1.1 range and then applied various reductions; some final sentences fell within or below the original § 2D1.1 ranges.
- Amendment 782 lowered only § 2D1.1; § 4B1.1 was unchanged. The Sentencing Commission made the amendment retroactive.
- District courts granted two-level reductions under § 3582(c)(2)/U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 reasoning the sentences were nevertheless “based on” § 2D1.1 (because courts considered the drug guideline in downward departures).
- The Government appealed, arguing the applicable guideline range was § 4B1.1, so Amendment 782 did not lower the guideline range “applicable to” these defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence is eligible for reduction under § 3582(c)(2)/§ 1B1.10 when the original sentence started from § 4B1.1 (career offender) but the court downwardly considered § 2D1.1 | Gov: Sentences were based on § 4B1.1; Amendment 782 did not lower the guideline range "applicable to" defendants, so no relief | Defs: "Based on" in § 3582(c)(2) is broad; if the district court relied on § 2D1.1 in departing, the sentence is "based on" § 2D1.1 and eligible | Held: Sentences were "based on" § 4B1.1 (career-offender range); Amendment 782 did not lower that range; district courts lacked authority to grant reductions; reversals affirmed |
| Whether consideration of § 2D1.1 in crafting a downward disposition makes a sentence "based on" § 2D1.1 for § 3582(c)(2) purposes | Gov: Reliance on such consideration is insufficient; applicable range is the highest guideline in effect (here § 4B1.1) | Defs: Cited Freeman and other authority to argue a sentence can still be "based on" § 2D1.1 if it informed the court's choice | Held: Reliance on § 2D1.1 does not change which guideline is "applicable"; Fifth Circuit follows Anderson/Banks rule that the controlling (highest) guideline governs eligibility |
| Scope of Fifth Circuit precedent on resentencing eligibility when career-offender range controls | Gov: Precedent (Anderson, Banks) supports denying § 3582 relief when § 4B1.1 controls | Defs: Attempted to distinguish Freeman and other authorities | Held: Banks and Anderson control; courts look to the guideline range applicable at time of resentencing (the higher § 4B1.1), foreclosing relief |
| Cross-appeal: whether Cooksey’s non-drug grouped count (counterfeit-obligations) separately entitles him to reduction | Cooksey: Argues the counterfeit-obligations count should get the § 2D1.1 reduction | Gov: Whole sentence was based on § 4B1.1 so neither count is eligible | Held: Cooksey's sentence was "based on" § 4B1.1; no reduction on the grouped count either |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (concerned plea-agreement sentencing; cited by defendants but distinguishable)
- United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789 (5th Cir.) (rule that Amendment to § 2D1.1 does not permit reduction when sentence was calculated from higher § 4B1.1)
- United States v. Banks, 770 F.3d 346 (5th Cir.) (clarifies that eligibility looks to the guideline range applicable at resentencing; supports denying § 3582 relief when § 4B1.1 controls)