Opinion ID: 3172550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conviction and Original Sentence

Text: On August 9, 2011, Mr. Wilson pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 from approximately September 2010 to April 2011. At his sentencing hearing on April 5, 2012, the district court determined Mr. Wilson’s sentencing guideline range was 120-50 months of imprisonment based on the 2011 U.S.S.G., which was effective at the time of sentencing.1 The court imposed a downward-variant sentence of 60 months in prison. B. Amendment 782 and the Denial of Mr. Wilson’s Motion to Reduce His Sentence The Sentencing Commission subsequently promulgated Amendment 782, effective November 1, 2014, which provides a retroactive two-offense-level reduction for certain drug offenses. Mr. Wilson moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), contending application of Amendment 782 would reduce his guideline range from 120-50 (“original range”) to 100-25 months (“amended range”). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (“Modification of an Imposed Term of Imprisonment”), a court must follow the instructions in U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 to determine a “prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). At issue in district court was which § 1B.10 should apply: the 2010 version, which was in effect when Mr. 1 See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a) (“The court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced.”) -2- Wilson committed the offense, or the 2014 version, which was in effect when Mr. Wilson moved for a reduced sentence. The United States contended the 2014 version should apply because the Guidelines Manual instructs that “the court shall use the version of this policy statement that is in effect on the date on which the court reduces the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” § 1B.10 cmt. n.1 (2014). It argued Mr. Wilson was ineligible for a sentence reduction under the 2014 version because (1) his original sentence of 60 months was less than his amended range of 10025 months, see § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (2014), and (2) the original variance was not based on substantial assistance to the United States, see § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (2014). Mr. Wilson contended the 2010 version should apply instead. He argued that, under this version, he was eligible for a reduction below the amended range comparable to the reduction he received below his original range. See § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (2010). Because the 2014 version eliminated the possibility of such a comparable reduction, Mr. Wilson argued application of the 2014 version would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, art. I, § 9, cl. 3. The district court denied Mr. Wilson’s motion. The court applied the 2014 version of § 1B.10 and determined his new total offense level under Amendment 782 was 25. Applying his original criminal history category of V to his new total offense level, it calculated a revised guideline range of 100 to 125 months. The court concluded Mr. Wilson was ineligible for a sentence reduction under the 2014 version of § 1B.10 because (1) his original sentence of 60 months was less than the 100-month minimum of the -3- revised guideline range, see § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (2014), and (2) the original variance was not based on substantial assistance to the United States, see § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (2014). The district court rejected Mr. Wilson’s argument that application of the 2014 version of § 1B.10 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, quoting United States v. Diggs, 768 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2014): “[b]y nature, a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding to reduce a sentence does not have any bearing on the ex post facto clause, because it cannot increase a punishment.” 768 F.3d at 645.