Source: http://blog.federaldefendersny.org/author/yuanchung/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:15:13+00:00

Document:
In United States v. Anthony Lewis, Docket Nos. 15-3245-cr (L) & 15-3307-cr (CON), an unpublished summary order, the Court (Calabresi, Livingston & Rakoff (by designation)) rejected two appeals by Mr. Lewis from two denials of two § 3582(c)(2) motions for a reduced sentence based on two retroactively applicable Guideline amendments, one in 2010 and the other in 2014. The case is of interest principally for demonstrating the see-saw application of the Career Offender Guideline vis-a-via the Drug Guideline (§ 2D1.1) in the context of § 3582(c)(2) motions.
The Circuit issued no relevant published decisions today and only two short summary orders, one of which (marginally) bears wider interest. In United States v. Mobutu Thornhill, Docket No. 15-2147-cr, the Circuit (Jacobs, Calabresi, Raggi) affirmed Thornhill’s conviction, following a jury trial, for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The sole issue discussed in the summary order is Thornhill’s argument (not made below and thus reviewed here for plain error) that the trial court “improperly allowed a lay witness to offer expert testimony concerning the identification of the weapon[,] in violation of Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Order at 1.
In United States v. Leroy Derry, Docket No. 15-1829-cr, which was issued yesterday but amended today, the Circuit (by Judge Parker, joined by Judges Pooler and Livingston) ruled as a matter of statutory interpretation that Derry was ineligible for a second sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because the new 2015 amendment (under which he was seeking the second reduction) did not lower the range determined by a prior Guideline amendment in 2011, under which Derry received a lower sentence (though not to the bottom of the amended range), even if this range was lower than the range employed at the original sentencing in 1999.
The Circuit did not issue today either a decision or a summary order relevant to criminal practice.
Nor did the Supreme Court.

References: v. 
 § 3582
 § 3582
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3582