In United States v. Zapatero, the Second Circuit (Hall, Sullivan, Bianco) issued a published opinion concerning a narrow sentencing issue, ruling that a district court may not rely on a Sentencing Guidelines §5G1.3(b) adjustment made at a defendant’s original sentencing to subsequently reduce the defendant’s sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), to one that falls below the defendant’s amended Guidelines range. The decision is based on strict interpretation of the Guidelines, which only permit reductions under Section 3582(c)(2) in fairly narrow circumstances.

The Court today affirmed, holding that the statutory language makes plain that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition,” and that, if that statement is not in writing, the associated debt may be discharged, even if the statement was false. The Court's decision is available here.Koons v. United States, No. 17-5716: 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) provides that a criminal defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction if he was initially sentenced “based on a sentencing range” that was later lowered by the United States Sentencing Commission. Here, all five petitioners pleaded guilty to methamphetamine conspiracy offenses and were sentenced by the District Court.

U.S. v. Jordan, 853 F.3d 1334 (4/18/17) (Kan.) - The 10th finds Mr. Jordan eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2)/11(c)(1)(C). The 11(c)(1)(C) agreement called for a sentence within the range of 135 to 168 months based on an offense level of 31.

Williams argues that Guidelines Amendment 780 revised § 3582(c)(2)’s policy statement covering sentence reductions, thus qualifying him for relief. Williams had originally pled guilty to distributing cocaine base, and prior to his plea, the U.S. Attorney filed notice that Williams’ previous North Carolina drug conviction would be used to enhance his sentence. They then calculated the proper sentence, and after Williams’ filed a pro se motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court denied his motion because his sentence was based on a statutory mandatory minimum, as opposed to the Guidelines range that had been lowered. This appeal followed.

Congress granted the U.S. Sentencing Commission authority to establish “new guidelines” to “conform the Sentencing Guidelines with the FSA’s new penalty ratio.”This was done in 2010 through what is known as Amendment 750 which was made retroactive and became effective November 1, 23011.The Third Circuit pointed out that under the new retroactive guidelines, Ortiz’s offense level would be 30. “With the upward and downward adjustments already established,” the court said, “this would lead to a Guideline range of 78-97 months rather than 97-121 months for Ortiz.”Pursuant to these retroactive modifications in the Sentencing Guidelines in crack cocaine cases, Ortiz sought a sentence modification under procedures authorized in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Government opposed the request, telling the district court that Ortiz was not eligible for such a reduction because of the 120-month mandatory minimum that should have been imposed.

United States v. Quary, 2018 WL 718608 (10th Cir. February 6, 2018) (KS): Quary filed a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion and was successful in getting his life sentence reduced to 420 months. He then filed a § 2255 motion - his second.

Petitioner Hughes was sentenced to 180 months in prison for drug- and firearm-related offenses. Hughes sought a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after the U.S. Sentencing Commission retroactively amended the guidelines. The district court determined that Hughes was ineligible for a sentence reduction, basing its decision on Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Freeman v. United States.

Compassionate ReleaseSection 3582(c)(1)(A) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides that “upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prison,” a sentencing court may reduce an inmate’s sentence where it finds that(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; andThis provision commonly is referred to as “compassionate release.” With respect to compassionate release, USSG §1B1.13 sets forth the Commission’s policy, which simply copies verbatim 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).Now, on the heels of two Department of Justice reports, and a public hearing, the Commission has found it necessary to “broaden the criteria for eligibility, to add guidance to the medical criteria, and to remove other administrative hurdles that limit the availability of compassionate release for otherwise eligible defendants.” U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2016 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official Commentary 1 (Reader-Friendly Version; Apr. 28, 2016) (“2016 Amendments”) available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/20160428_RF.pdf.

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.

U.S. v. Price, 2015 WL 5915954 (10/9/15) (Kan) (unpub'd) - The 10th reviews a "Drugs Minus 2" 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) motion with a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement with unfriendly reasoning and an unhappy result The parties agreed to a 20-year sentence. The agreement did not mention a guideline range but did say: "the proposed sentence does not offend the sentencing guidelines, but, because the sentence is sought under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), the parties are not requesting the imposition of a guideline sentence."