The Court of Appeals Rejected the Defendant’s Challenge to the District Court’s Denial of His § 3582 Motion Because a Sentence Cannot be Reduced Under § 3582 if the Sentence Was Based on a Mandatory Minimum

United States v. Johnson, No. 13-2732. Johnson pled guilty to possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute in 2011. He was sentenced to a below mandatory minimum sentence based on his assistance to the government. He initially requested a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after changes were made to the crack cocaine guidelines in 2011. The district court denied his motion. In 2013, he filed a second request. The district court denied his motion because it was an impermissible second or successive motion forreduction of sentence and because Johnson did not qualify for the reduction. The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that the § 3582 motion could not success because a sentence cannot be reduced under § 3582(c)(2) if it was based on a statutory minimum, citing United States v. Poole. Rejected Johnson’s arguments to the contrary, the Court held the statutory minimum is part of the “applicable guidelines range” and therefore, the 2011 amendments to the guidelines did not change the analysis. This opinion falls on one side of a Circuit split and our office is planning on filing a cert. petition.