United States v. William Muldrow
844 F.3d 434
4th Cir.2016Background
- William Muldrow and Luis Gomez, previously sentenced for federal drug offenses, received downward departures under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 at their original sentencings.
- Both moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for sentence reductions after Amendment 782 (2-level drug offense reduction) was made retroactive.
- At resentencing district court recalculated the amended guideline ranges using each defendant’s pre-departure criminal history category, not the post-departure category used at original sentencing, and reduced each sentence only to the low end of those pre-departure amended ranges.
- The district court relied on Amendment 759 to the Sentencing Guidelines commentary, which defines “applicable guideline range” as the range determined before any departures or variances.
- Defendants appealed, arguing Amendment 759 is inconsistent with the Guidelines text and does not apply to their resentencings; the government argued Amendment 759 validly governs calculation of the amended guideline range.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding Amendment 759’s revised commentary binds sentencing courts in § 3582(c)(2) resentencings and does not conflict with the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 759 binds resentencing courts calculating the amended guideline range under § 1B1.10 | Amendment 759 conflicts with § 1B1.10(b)(1) and § 1B1.1(a)(6) because those provisions require mirroring original sentencing findings (including departures); thus courts should use post-departure history categories | Amendment 759 is valid commentary clarifying that the "applicable guideline range" is determined before departures/variances, so courts should use pre-departure categories when calculating amended ranges | Amendment 759 is binding commentary under Stinson; courts must calculate the applicable/amended guideline range using pre-departure offense level and criminal history category (affirmed) |
| Whether Amendment 759 is applicable at resentencings held after the amendment took effect | Amendment 759 should not control because it wasn’t the retroactive amendment being applied (Amendment 782 was) and it changes the legal framework used at original sentencing | § 1B1.10(cmt. n.8) requires using the policy statement in effect on the date the court reduces the sentence; because Amendment 759 was in effect at resentencing, it governs calculation | Amendment 759 applies at resentencings held after it took effect; precedent (Munn) yielded to Commission amendment |
| Whether the commentary as revised by Amendment 759 is inconsistent with the Guidelines text such that it is not binding | The revised commentary conflicts with the plain language of § 1B1.10(b)(1) and § 1B1.1 by precluding use of departures when determining the applicable guideline range | The commentary merely clarifies that § 1B1.1(a) (which defines the applicable range) does not include departures, and § 1B1.10(b)(1)'s instruction to "leave other guideline application decisions unaffected" refers to non-amended guideline determinations—so there is no conflict | No conflict; under Stinson the commentary is authoritative unless unconstitutional, statutory conflict, or plainly erroneous; Amendment 759 does not meet those exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (commentary authoritative unless unconstitutional, statutorily inconsistent, or plainly erroneous)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines advisory after severance)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (two-step § 3582(c)(2) framework; follow § 1B1.10 at step one)
- Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (Commission may amend Guidelines to resolve conflicts with judicial decisions)
- United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. pre-Amendment 759 decision holding departures included in applicable guideline range calculation)
- United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. recognizing district court must apply the § 1B1.10 policy statement in effect at time of resentencing)
- United States v. Montanez, 717 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. recognizing Amendment 759 forecloses the post-departure approach)
- United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. holding applicable guideline range is pre-departure range)
- United States v. Shell, 789 F.3d 335 (4th Cir. discussing commentary’s binding effect)