Opinion ID: 615762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sentencing Commission's Retroactive Sentence Reductions and the Sentencing Modifications They Authorize

Text: The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA), Pub.L. No. 98-473, tit. II, ch. II, 98 Stat.1987, requires the Commission to periodically review the Guidelines and to revise them as appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) (2006). When the Commission amends the Guidelines to lower the sentencing range for a particular offense, it is authorized by the SRA to decide whether and to what extent previously-sentenced offenders may benefit from the change: If the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense or category of offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced. § 994(u). As the Supreme Court recently observed, these provisions allow for correction when a particular guideline becomes a cause of inequality, not a bulwark against it. Freeman v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2690, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (plurality opinion). The Commission's exercise of this statutory authority triggers an exception to the general rule that sentencing courts are not authorized to modify sentences after they are imposed. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides that in 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 Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the defendant... or on its own motion, 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. One of the critical issues in this case is whether Rivera's sentence was based on a subsequently-lowered sentence range within the meaning of § 3582(c)(2). A retroactive amendment merely authorizes a reduction in sentence; it does not require one. In determining whether to modify a sentence, a judge must consider not only the traditional sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but also the post-sentencing behavior of the defendant and any public safety concerns a reduction in sentence would raise. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B). Though a ruling granting or denying an eligible offender's request for a reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir.2009), an order declaring an offender ineligible for one is reviewed de novo, see United States v. McGee, 553 F.3d 225, 226 (2d Cir.2009). Section 3582(c)(2) grants courts the authority to reduce sentences only if doing so is consistent with the Commission's applicable policy statements. The relevant policy statement in this regard is U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, entitled Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range, which lists the amendments that the Commission has made retroactive. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). In 2007, at the same time it made the reduced sentences for crack offenses retroactive, the Commission also amended § 1B1.10 to more fully exercise the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) to dictate when and by what amount an amendment may reduce previously-imposed sentences. Of importance to Rivera's case are the provisions in § 1B1.10(a) italicized below, which restrict a court's authority to reduce a sentence to cases in which a retroactive amendment has the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range: (1) In General. In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (c) below, the court may reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement. (2) Exclusions. A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if ... (B) an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a) (emphases added). The Commentary to the section reiterates that eligibility for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (c) [of § 1B1.10] that lowers the applicable guideline range. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). As for the extent of the permissible reduction in sentence, § 1B1.10(b)(2) provides that the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range 30.... U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). If the original sentence was lower than the applicable range, the policy statement provides for a commensurate reduction in the amended sentence. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (If the original term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range ... may be appropriate.). Finally, despite United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), which rendered the Guidelines merely advisory, the limitations on the degree of a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) are mandatory: Section 3582(c)(2)'s text, together with its narrow scope, shows that Congress intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding. Dillon v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).