Dillon v. United States
560 U.S. 817, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4975, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010)
Rule of Law:
Federal courts are generally prohibited from modifying a term of imprisonment once imposed, with an exception allowing reduction if a defendant was sentenced based on a Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. In these limited sentence modification proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Sentencing Commission's policy statement USSG § 1B1.10, which limits reductions to the amended Guidelines range, is binding, and the advisory framework established by United States v. Booker for initial sentencings does not apply.
Facts:
- Percy Dillon was convicted by a jury in 1993 of conspiracy to distribute and possess powder and crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and using a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense.
- At sentencing, the District Court made additional factual findings determining Dillon was responsible for 1.5 kilograms of crack and 1.6 kilograms of powder cocaine, leading to a base offense level of 38 under the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Dillon's total offense level of 38, combined with a criminal-history category of II, resulted in a then-mandatory Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment for the drug counts.
- The District Court sentenced Dillon at the bottom of the Guidelines range for the drug counts (262 months), plus a mandatory 60-month consecutive sentence for the firearm offense, totaling 322 months' imprisonment.
- The sentencing court described the 322-month term as “entirely too high for the crime Dillon committed” and expressed feeling constrained by the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.
- In 2007, the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines to reduce the base offense level associated with each quantity of crack cocaine by two levels to address sentencing disparities.
- In 2008, the Commission made this crack cocaine amendment retroactive, allowing certain prisoners to seek sentence reductions.
- Dillon filed a pro se motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), arguing for a reduction beyond the amended Guidelines range based on his post-sentencing conduct and contending that Booker made the amended Guidelines advisory.
Procedural Posture:
- Percy Dillon was convicted by a jury in 1993 in a federal District Court on multiple drug and firearm charges.
- The District Court sentenced Dillon to 322 months' imprisonment.
- The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Dillon’s convictions and sentence on appeal.
- After the Sentencing Commission made the crack-cocaine Guidelines amendment retroactive in 2008, Dillon filed a pro se motion in the District Court for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- The District Court reduced Dillon’s sentence to 270 months (the bottom of the revised Guidelines range) but declined to grant a further reduction, concluding it lacked authority to impose a sentence inconsistent with USSG § 1B1.10.
- Dillon appealed the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Dillon as appellant).
- The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that USSG § 1B1.10 is binding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, agreeing the District Court lacked authority to reduce Dillon's sentence below the amended range.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider Booker's applicability to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings (United States as appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does United States v. Booker, which rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory for initial sentencings, require courts to treat the Sentencing Commission's policy statement USSG § 1B1.10 as nonbinding in proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to modify an already imposed sentence, thereby allowing a reduction below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No, United States v. Booker does not render the Sentencing Commission's policy statement USSG § 1B1.10(b) nonbinding in proceedings for sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court held that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not equivalent to initial sentencings or resentencings but rather authorize only a limited 'modification' of an otherwise final sentence. This narrow scope is supported by the statute's text, which distinguishes it from resentencing provisions, and by Congress's delegation of substantial authority to the Sentencing Commission under 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) to determine when and 'by what amount' sentences may be reduced due to retroactive Guidelines amendments. The statute establishes a two-step inquiry: first, a court must determine that a reduction is consistent with § 1B1.10 (including its limits on reducing below the amended Guidelines range); and second, it may consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors to determine if the authorized reduction is warranted. This circumscribed discretion does not implicate the Sixth Amendment concerns addressed in Booker because any judge-found facts affect only the exercise of discretion within an established range, not an increase in punishment beyond a jury-found range. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, which exempts § 3582(c) proceedings from the defendant's required presence, reinforces their distinct, limited nature. Therefore, Booker's constitutional and remedial holdings do not apply, and courts must adhere to the binding limits set by USSG § 1B1.10.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, United States v. Booker should render the Sentencing Commission's policy statement USSG § 1B1.10(b) nonbinding in sentence modification proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Justice Stevens argued that Booker's broad remedial holding eliminated all mandatory features of the Guidelines, intending to make them entirely advisory across all sentencing contexts. He contended that the fact Booker explicitly severed only statutory sections was because the specific policy statement § 1B1.10 had no explicit binding effect at that time; it is only post-Booker that the Commission has attempted to grant it binding force, effectively attempting to circumvent Booker's remedy. This action, in Justice Stevens' view, raises significant separation-of-powers concerns, as Congress originally distinguished between binding 'guidelines' and advisory 'policy statements,' and the Commission should not, by its own fiat, limit the effect of a Supreme Court decision that clearly placed 'the ball in Congress’ court' for legislative response. He criticized the majority for creating a system Booker explicitly rejected: 'mandatory in some cases and nonmandatory in others.' Justice Stevens emphasized the manifest injustice of binding courts in cases like Dillon's, where the initial sentence was deemed excessively harsh by the sentencing judge, and the defendant has demonstrated remarkable rehabilitation, arguing that allowing discretion would lead to more tailored, proportionate, and just sentences.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the reach of United States v. Booker's advisory Guidelines framework, establishing that its constitutional and remedial holdings do not apply to post-sentencing sentence modification proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The decision reinforces the finality of criminal sentences and limits judicial discretion in revisiting them, thereby creating a narrow exception where the Sentencing Commission retains binding authority through its policy statements. This ruling helps maintain administrative order and predictability in a specific class of sentence adjustments but restricts a district court's ability to impose a sentence below the amended Guidelines range, even when considering a defendant's rehabilitation or a judge's original discomfort with the imposed sentence.
