Lead Opinion
Aftеr Hamedah A. Hasan was sentenced for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in 1993, the drug quantity table in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) was amended in a way that reduced Hasan’s base offense level and thus lowered her sentence from life imprisonment to 324 to 405 months. Because the Sentencing Commission made the amendment retroactive, Hasan filed a motion to lower her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), then asked the district court to depart below 324 months under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 and its statutory equivalent, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), based on her extraordinary prison record. The district court concluded § 3582(c) authorized consideration of Hasan’s departure motion. Finding Ha-san’s efforts at rehabilitation in prison were indeed extraordinary, the district court departed from the Guidelines range and resentenced Hasan to 144 months imprisonment. The Government appeals the district court’s resentencing order arguing the court lacked authority to depart from the resentencing range of 324 to 405 months. We disagree and affirm Hasan’s new sentence.
When a defendant has been sentenced to a prison term based on a sentencing range that the Sentencing Commission later lowers, a court “may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. § ] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3553(a) states that in deciding the sentence, the court shall consider, among other things, “any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission ... that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.” Id. § 3553(a)(5).
Do these statutes permit consideration of a departure from the applicable resen-tencing range under the policy statement found in U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 and its statutory counterpart, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), for “mitigating circumstance[s] of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission”? Another court has said “no.” In that court’s view, the policy statement referred to by the statutes includes only U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the guideline implementing § 3582(c)(2), and not other guidelines like § 5K2.0. See United States v. Jordan,
Although this is not an unreasonable interpretation of the statutes, we believe the statutes’ referral can also be reasonably viewed as including U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. Eighth Circuit case law lends support to this view. A § 3582(c)(2) motion requires a district court to make two distinct decisions. See United States v. Mihm,
Because we have read § 3582(c)(2) and § 3553(a) as permitting consideration of departures under § 3553(e) and § 3553(f), we believe § 3582(c)(2) and § 3553(a) can also reasonably be read to permit consideration of departures under § 3553(b). Although this may be debatable, because they are departures of different sorts, the rule of lenity requires us to resolve any reasonable doubt about the statutes’ interpretation in a defendant’s favor. See United States v. Warren,
The district court in this case used the proper analysis at Hasan’s § 3582(c)(2) rеsentencing. First, the district court stated that if the resentencing range had applied at Hasan’s initial sentencing, he would have sentenced Hasan to 324 months, the lowest end of the new range. Second, the district court properly looked to all the relevant statutory factors in § 3553(a) as they stood at the time of the resentencing. The district court noted Hasan’s extensive efforts to rehabilitate herself in prison when considering her history and characteristics, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), the need to protect the public from her further crimes, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(C), and her need for educational or vocational training, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Under § 3553(a)(5), the district court also considered “pertinent policy statements] issued by the Sentencing Commission,” including a departure under § .5K2.0 or its statutory twin, § 3553(b).
The Government argues the distriсt court improperly relied on post-original-sentencing facts. Again, we disagree. In the § 3582(c)(2) context, we have held a district court must evaluate the general sentencing considerations in § 3553 and exercise its “sentencing discretion at the time it rules on the § 3582(c)(2) motion.” Mihm,
In sum, we conclude that when presented with Hasan’s § 3582(c)(2) resentencing motion, the district court properly considered Hasan’s motion to depart from the Guidelines range based on Hasan’s extraordinary rehabilitation in prison. Although the Government does not argue Hasan’s rehabilitative efforts are not ex
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The district court incorrectly applied the second step of the Wyatt two-step process. Under Wyatt, the district court first must “consider what sentence it would have imposed had the retroactive amendment been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” United States v. Wyatt,
With all due respect, I conclude that Ms. Hasan’s post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts, as commendable and positivе as they are, should be considered only to aid the district court’s second-step decision of whether to resentence her to 324 months of imprisonment. This interpretation is consistent with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which reads:
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentеncing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the defendant ... the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
When the statute speaks of “applicable policy statements,” I believe it refers to the policy statements which were to be issued by the Sentencing Commission governing such reductions in order to implement § 3582(c)(2), namely United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 1B1.10, first promulgated November 1, 1989, and not all of the Commission’s other existing policy statements on departure. The background commentary to USSG § 1B1.10 (1998) (emphasis added) states:
The listing of an amendment in subsection (c) reflects policy determinations by the Commission that a reduced guideline range is sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing and that, in the sound discretion of the court, a reduction in the term of imprisonment may be appropriate for previously sentenced, qualified defendants. The authorization of such a discretionary reduction does not otherwise affect the lawfulness of a previously imposed sentence, does not authorize a reduction in any other component of the sentence, and does not entitle a defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment as a matter of right.
The court’s opinion asserts that the district court’s decision is supported by United States v. Wyatt, United States v. Williams, and United States v. Mihm. All three cases are distinguishable from this ease. In Wyatt, we concluded only that the district court could consider the defendant’s subsequent escape as rеlevant to his nature and characteristics (§ 3553(a) factors) in making the decision whether the defendant should be granted a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. See Wyatt,
Post-sentencing conduct on the part of the defendant was not at issue in Williams or Mihm. In Williams, the defendant already had received (prior to any § 3582(c)(2) motion being filed) a 55% reduction from the bottom of the range of his sentence as initially determined based upon substantial assistance rendered both pre and post-sentencing. See Williams,
In Mihm, the retroactive amendment made the defendant eligible for a lower sentence, in which the newly available range fell below the otherwisе applicable 120-month statutory minimum. Likewise in Williams, the retroactive amendment and the desire to retain the previously granted 55% reduction for substantial assistance together resulted in a sentence length below the statutory minimum. Thus, in both Mihm and Williams, the retroactive amendment triggered the issue of whether the defendant should be allowed to end up with a sentence below the statutory minimum of 120 months. Therefore, allowing the defendants relief in these cases did not violate the background commentary prohibiting “a reduction in any other component of the sentence.”
The court’s opinion distinguishes United States v. Sims on the grounds that Sims involved a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 resentencing rather than a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) resen-tencing. I am not persuaded by such a distinction without a difference. It is true that Sims was a limited resentencing in light of Bailey v. United States,
Additionally, I do not think the broad language of Sims limits the prohibition against considering post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct only to § 2255 motions. Sims explains that “permitting a downward departure based on post-sentencing rehabilitation makes little legal sense.” Sims,
Congress has already put into place a procedure to account for a defendant’s excellent prison conduct by abolishing the parole system and granting statutory authority to the Bureau of Prisons to award good-time credits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624. Id. (citing United States v. Rhodes,
Although the Sentencing Commission has authorized a lower sentencing range through enacting Amendment 505, allowing a further downward departure based on in-prison conduct results in a windfall to those defendants who fortuitously benefit from a § 3582(c)(2) resentencing. For example, another defendant who has committed the same substantive offense as Ms. Hasan and who has an identical or even superior prison record, but who was not affected by Amendment 505 because that defendant was held responsible for only one kilogram of cocaine base rather than 5.9 kilograms as Ms. Hasan was, would be required to serve his original sentence in its entirety with only the good-time credits available under 18 U.S.C. § 3624. That defendant would be in prison substantially lоnger than Ms. Hasan will be because that defendant would not be given the opportunity to have his exemplary imprison conduct considered in a new motion for downward departure at a § 3582(c)(2) re-sentencing. The Sentencing Commission determined that extending the Drug Quantity Table above level 38 was “not required to ensure adequate punishment given that organizers, leaders, managers, and suрervisors of such offenses will receive a 4-, 3-, or 2-level enhancement for their role in
This ’court has allowed а defendant’s post-offense rehabilitative conduct, conduct from arrest up to the time of sentencing, to be a basis for downward departure, see Sims,
Notes
. Prior to the Commission’s adoption of Amendment 505, the defendant in Williams had received a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) reduction from his original sentence based upon substantial assistance he had rendered within one year of the imposition of his sentence. His post-sentencing substantial assistance had already been lawfully accounted for through a proper Rule 35(b) motion and was reflected in the total 55% reduction he received below the range of his initially determined sentence. No subsequent post-sentencing conduct occurring after the Rule 35(b) reduction was put forward by the government in support of the § 3553(e) motion.
. Section 3553(e) authorizes the district court, upon motion of the government, to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum to reflect a defendant’s substantial assistance.