Opinion ID: 2750533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gay’s Claims and Legal Theories

Text: In his briefing, Gay contends that the “continued enforcement of [his] sentence of confinement derived through the application of the 100-to-1 punishment differential for cocaine base and enforced through the application of the mandatory sentencing guidelines” violates his Due Process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Appellant Br. at 12. Because, he says, his sentence was “derived through a process now recognized as Constitutionally flawed and scientifically untenable,” Gay argues that it also violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 5 Appellant Br. at 5 We do not understand Gay to argue that § 3582(c)(2) or its corresponding policy statement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, are themselves unconstitutional. Any such argument would run headlong into our precedent. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010) (emphasizing that “sentence-modification proceedings authorized by § 3582(c)(2) are not constitutionally compelled” and that “§ 3582(c)(2) represents a congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of later enacted adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Guidelines”); United States v. Hodge, 721 F.3d 1279, 1281 (10th Cir. 2013) (determining that “§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not constitutionally required and do not implicate a liberty interest”). -6- 4, 16. He claims that his sentence was “derived as a result of a process that both violated the Sixth Amendment and enforced a grossly disproportionate punishment differential subsequently acknowledged as insupportable.” Id. at 18– 19. B. No Authority to Hear Constitutional Challenges in § 3582(c)(2) Proceedings We review de novo the scope of a district court’s authority to resentence a defendant in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. Williams, 575 F.3d 1075, 1076 (10th Cir. 2009). Nowhere does Gay tie his constitutional challenges to his motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the matter heard in the district court and supposedly supplying a basis for this appeal. Instead, as noted above, he complains that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 6 has not been applied retroactively and that as a result, his sentence continues to reflect the 100:1 sentencing disparity existing at his 1998 sentencing. At the same time, he acknowledges that the Supreme Court itself has recently stated that Booker is not applicable retroactively. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010) (reviewing an appeal from a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, the Court rejected an argument that, under Booker, the district court should have resentenced the 6 In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court found that the mandatory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to be tried by a jury and to have every element of their offense proven by a reasonable doubt. 543 U.S. at 235, 243–44. To remedy the problem, the Supreme Court rendered the Guidelines advisory by invalidating certain provisions of the SRA. Id. at 259. It concluded that the remainder of the Guidelines is constitutional. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 820–21 (2010). -7- defendant under the advisory guidelines and adjusted his criminal history category). Moreover, Gay can hardly deny that the district court would have been quite willing to give him the benefit of Amendment 750’s 18:1 ratio had it in fact served to lower his sentencing range. Gay’s challenge amounts to a collateral attack on his sentence, seeking relief beyond that allowed in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1006–07 (10th Cir. 2006) (finding no authority to consider Booker relief in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding after noting that courts may modify a defendant’s sentence only when Congress has expressly given jurisdiction to do so); United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 542–43 (10th Cir. 1997) (finding no jurisdiction in a § 3582(c)(2) appeal to consider the effect of counsel’s failure to request safety-valve relief, because this relief should be addressed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion). Nothing in the limited congressional grant of authority to modify sentences provided by § 3582(c)(2) allows Gay to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence. He must do so either on direct appeal or in a § 2255 petition. “A judge’s resentencing authority is a creation of statute….” United States v. Pedraza, 550 F.3d 1218, 1220 (10th Cir. 2008). “[A] district court is authorized to modify a defendant’s sentence only in specified instances where Congress has expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so.” Price, 438 F.3d at 1007 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts may grant a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) only where the Sentencing Commission has lowered a prisoner’s applicable guideline range. See -8- Pedraza, 550 F.3d at 1220. This limited jurisdiction is a “narrow exception to the usual rule of finality of judgments….” Id. Section 3582(c)(2) proceedings are “narrow” in scope and authorize “only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826; see also United States v. Washington, 759 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[W]e begin by recognizing [that] the modification procedure set out in § 3582(c)(2) is carefully constrained.”). C. Fifth and Eighth Amendment Claims Gay argues that his 1998 sentencing, based on a 100:1 disparity between cocaine powder and cocaine base, violates both his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. In fact, at oral argument, his counsel contended that any disparity beyond a 1:1 ratio violates the Eighth Amendment. Because he did not raise these issues in the underlying proceeding, we review these claims for plain error. United States v. Steele, 603 F.3d 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2010). There is no plain error here because, as Gay himself acknowledges, our precedent squarely rejects Gay’s argument. See United States v. Brooks, 161 F.3d 1240, 1247 (10th Cir. 1998) (applying binding circuit precedent, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the 100:1 disparity for cocaine powder and cocaine base violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendments). Congress has also explicitly rejected this notion: “the sentence imposed for trafficking in a quantity of crack cocaine should generally exceed the sentence imposed for trafficking in a like quantity of powder cocaine.” Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 105 -9- (2007) (quoting Pub. L. 104–38, § 2(a)(1)(A), 109 Stat. 334) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor does Gay’s 262-month sentence violate the Eighth Amendment based solely on the length of incarceration. See United States v. Williams, 576 F.3d 1149, 1165 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirming life sentences on two counts of distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1002–05 (1991) (holding that a life sentence without parole for possession of 650 grams of cocaine base did not violate the Eighth Amendment).