United States v. William Mahan, 15-30365

Mahan was convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute; he received a 120-month sentence on those counts plus a consecutive 60-month mandatory minimum under § 924(c), for a total of 180 months.
At the original sentencing (2008) the Guidelines range was 140–175 months (offense level 28, CHC VI); the district court granted a downward variance to 120 months, in part to account for ~20 months Mahan had served in state custody after a state probation-violation arrest that occurred after the federal indictment.
Amendment 782 (2014) lowered the base offense level for Mahan’s drug count to yield an amended Guidelines range of 120–150 months.
Mahan moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction, asking the court to reduce his term to 100 months so the federal sentence would effectively credit (again) the ~20 months of prior state custody.
The district court denied relief, finding U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)/(B) barred reducing a defendant’s term of imprisonment below the bottom of the amended Guidelines range.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding (in light of a contemporaneous panel opinion) that § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) does not bar a district court from treating discharged state time as part of the defendant’s “term of imprisonment” for purposes of § 3582(c)(2), and directed the district court to exercise discretion consistent with that rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court, when reducing a federal sentence under § 3582(c)(2) based on an amended Guidelines range, may treat prior discharged state custody as part of the defendant’s “term of imprisonment” so that the federal term can be reduced below the amended Guideline minimum	Mahan: discharged state time may be included in the defendant’s overall “term of imprisonment,” allowing the court to reduce the federal sentence below the amended Guideline floor to account for that time	Government / Dissent: “term of imprisonment” refers only to the federal term; § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) bars reducing a federal sentence below the amended Guidelines minimum, so discharged state time cannot be used to push the federal term below that floor	Majority: vacated and remanded — district court may consider discharged state time as part of the “term of imprisonment” under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10 in light of the panel’s reasoning (court to exercise discretion on remand)

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) authorizes a limited sentence modification, not a plenary resentencing)
United States v. Drake, 49 F.3d 1438 (9th Cir. 1995) (discusses relation between concurrent sentencing and statutory mandatory minimums)
Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (judges have discretion to decide whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively)
United States v. Turnipseed, 159 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 1998) (if state sentence has been fully discharged, no undischarged term exists with which a federal sentence can run concurrently)
United States v. Finazzo, 841 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) prohibits reducing a sentence below the minimum of the amended Guideline range)