United States v. Tye Davis
696 F. App'x 56
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2004 Davis pleaded guilty to drug and weapons charges; original PSR yielded an advisory Guidelines range of 210–262 months and the court sentenced him to 210 months.
- On appeal the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing under Booker. A new PSR classified Davis as a career offender, raising the Guideline range to 262–327 months.
- At the 2008 resentencing the District Court adopted the career-offender PSR but granted a downward variance and resentenced Davis to 210 months, explaining it would not punish Davis for the court’s prior mistake.
- Davis later pursued other collateral challenges (including a § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim) and those were rejected; the career-offender classification was affirmed on the record.
- Davis moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 (a two-level reduction in drug offense base levels), arguing his range should drop to 100–125 months. The District Court denied relief because his career-offender range was unaffected by Amendment 782.
- Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders; the panel conducted an independent review and affirmed the denial of the § 3582(c)(2) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis is eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 | Amendment 782 lowered drug offense levels and thus should lower Davis’s Guideline range to 100–125 months | Davis is a career offender; his applicable Guideline range is the career-offender range, which Amendment 782 did not alter, so he is ineligible | Not eligible: career-offender applicable range unchanged by Amendment 782, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is unauthorized |
| Whether counsel’s Anders motion was adequate | (implicit) Counsel reviewed record and identified the sole nonfrivolous issue (eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief) and explained frivolity | Court must independently review the record for nonfrivolous issues | Anders requirements satisfied; independent review found no nonfrivolous issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (requires advisory Sentencing Guidelines review)
- United States v. Flemming, 617 F.3d 252 (3d Cir.) (elements for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility)
- United States v. Thompson, 825 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2016) (Amendment 782 does not affect career-offender ranges)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (standards for appellate review of Anders motions)
- United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000) (scope of counsel’s obligations under Anders)