United States v. Waters
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17212
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Waters was convicted in 2002 of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and marijuana.
- At the 2002 sentencing, the court calculated a total offense level of 38 and a criminal history category V, using § 2D1.1 and § 3B1.4, before considering career offender status.
- The court found Waters qualified as a career offender, which raised his criminal history category to VI, but did not increase the total offense level beyond 38 for sentence calculation.
- Waters was sentenced to 360 months to life, the low end of the 360 months to life range.
- In 2007 Amendment 706 reduced crack cocaine base levels retroactively, potentially lowering Waters's guideline range under § 2D1.1.
- Waters moved under § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May § 1B1.10(b) permit using § 4B1.1 in the amended-range calculation? | Waters argues § 1B1.10(b) requires using the original non-career-offender offense level if that was used at sentencing. | Waters contends the original application decisions must remain unaffected, limiting changes to the amended range. | Yes; § 1B1.10(b) allows applying the career-offender level for the amended range. |
| Does Amendment 706 affect Waters's applicable range when he is a career offender? | Waters says Amendment 706 lowers his applicable range and thus may qualify for relief. | The range remains 360 months to life due to the career offender provision, so Amendment 706 does not lower the range. | No; Amendment 706 does not lower his applicable range because § 4B1.1(b) keeps the same range. |
| Can § 3582(c)(2) revisit Waters's career-offender status? | Waters seeks to challenge his career-offender determination on § 3582(c)(2) review. | Section 3582(c)(2) is limited to sentence reductions based on guideline changes, not collateral career-offender determinations. | No; Waters cannot challenge the career-offender status in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. |
| Was Waters eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) given the § 1B1.10(b) framework? | If Amendment 706 lowers the range, Waters would be eligible. | Because Amendment 706 does not change Waters's range under the career-offender framework, relief is not available. | No; § 1B1.10(b) results show no reduction is warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2009) (highlights § 3582(c)(2) limits and policy statements)
- United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (mutually exclusive sentencing schemes; updates on Amendment 706 effects)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (U.S. 2010) (section 3582(c)(2) scope and limitations)
- United States v. Dunn, 631 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (§ 3582(c)(2) authority is limited to guideline changes)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (limitations of § 3582(c)(2) collateral challenges)
- United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) does not reopen original sentencing issues)
- United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1994) (limitations on using § 3582(c)(2) to revisit sentences)
- United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (two sentencing schemes; application of 2D1.1 vs 4B1.1 in range)