United States v. Watkins
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22902
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Watkins was convicted in 1993 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and sentenced to life with enhancements totaling 44 levels, treated as 43, due to Guidelines rules.
- Amendment 505 lowered base offense level to 38, reducing total offense level to 42 and the Guidelines range to 30 years to life.
- Watkins filed three § 3582(c)(2) motions seeking retroactive application of Amendment 505; the district court denied each after weighing § 3553(a) factors.
- Amendment 706 (and retroactive Amendment 713) later lowered crack base offenses, but the district court found Watkins's range did not change and thus no authority to reduce.
- Watkins moved again in 2008 arguing for a reduction based on Amendments 505 and 706 and Booker considerations; the district court again denied, prompting this appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews eligibility de novo and the discretionary reduction decision for abuse of discretion, applying § 1B1.10 guidance and Booker considerations are limited by Dillon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility under Amendment 505 | Watkins: eligible for reduction due to lowered range. | Watkins's three prior denials plus severities weigh against reduction. | Eligible, but reduction not warranted. |
| Effect of Amendment 706 on eligibility | Amendment 706 should retroactively reduce range. | Amendment 706 did not lower Watkins's applicable range; no authority to reduce. | Ineligible under Amendment 706. |
| Discretionary nature of § 3582(c)(2) reductions | District court must consider 3553(a) factors; Booker concerns apply. | Courts may exercise discretion; prior record shows no justification for reduction. | District court did not abuse discretion in denying reduction. |
| Post-Booker challenges to the policy statements application | Policy statements should be treated as mandatory after Booker. | Dillon forecloses broad Booker challenges in § 3582(c)(2) context. | Policy statements remain mandatory; Booker challenges rejected. |
| Jurisdiction to review Booker-based arguments on disparity claims | Disparities between crack and powder cocaine should be reviewed. | Lack of jurisdiction to review Booker-based arguments in this context. | No jurisdiction to entertain Booker-based disparity challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (limits and governs § 3582(c)(2) proceedings; mandatory policy statements apply)
- Curry, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (reaffirmed discretion and consideration of § 3553(a) factors in § 3582(c)(2) appeals)
- Hameed, 614 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2010) (policy statements mandatory in sentence-modification context post-Dillon)
- United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2009) (statutory framework for § 3582(c)(2) modifications; deference to policy statements)
- United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reductions under § 3582(c)(2))