United States v. White
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16909
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Joseph White pled guilty to a single § 924(c) count after the government dismissed all other charges including the underlying drug-trafficking offense.
- The district court imposed the mandatory 60-month minimum for § 924(c) and then upwardly departed by 87 months to account for dismissed conduct, forming a 147-month total.
- The upward departure was based on calculations treating 21.35 grams of crack as underlying conduct that would have supported a higher guideline range.
- Amendment 750 retroactively lowered crack cocaine guidelines, but only affected the range that would have been used for the underlying conduct; White’s sentence still rested on the original 60-month minimum for the conviction.
- White sought § 3582(c)(2) relief after Amendment 750 took effect, arguing the sentence should be reduced to reflect the amended guidelines.
- The district court denied relief, citing lack of eligibility under § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, leading to this appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) permits reducing a sentence where the original departure was based on dismissed conduct. | White contends the amendment lowering crack guidelines affects his total punishment. | White argues the sentence was based on the amended range and thus eligible for reduction. | No; § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize reduction when the original sentence was based on a departure from the mandatory minimum that did not lower the foundation range. |
| Whether White was sentenced based on a lowered guideline range after Amendment 750. | White asserts the departure-based calculation was tied to the amended range. | The range used for sentence was the 60-month mandatory minimum, unchanged by the departure. | Pre-Freeman rule persists; not based on the amended range for § 3582(c)(2) purposes. |
| Whether Freeman v. United States requires reinterpreting § 3582(c)(2) to allow more relief. | White argues Freeman supports broader eligibility. | Freeman does not override existing § 3582(c)(2) framework. | Freeman does not modify the pre-existing rule that departures cannot create “based on” eligibility here. |
| Whether the denial should be vacated for jurisdictional reasons and remanded to dismiss. | N/A beyond merits; none raised to jurisdictional issue. | N/A beyond merits; district court’s jurisdiction is at issue. | The case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not denied on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (U.S. 2011) (addressed when a sentence can be ‘based on’ a Guidelines range under 3582(c)(2))
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (interprets 3582(c)(2) as a two-step inquiry (eligibility and then discretion))
- Darton v. United States, 595 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2010) (defines ‘based on’ range and pre-departure framework for 3582(c)(2))
- Dryden v. United States, 563 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2009) (pre-Freeman understanding of ‘based on’ clause)