ILNews

Amendment doesn't affect sentence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though the terms of a defendant's plea agreement didn't prevent him from filing a motion to reduce his sentence, he is ineligible for the reduction under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2) because his sentence wasn't affected by an amendment to the sentencing guidelines, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed today.

In United States of America v. John Q. Monroe, No. 08-2945, John Monroe appealed the District Court's denial of his motion for a reduction in the length of his sentence under Section 3582(c)(2). He had pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 168 months in prison. He faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months if he was convicted under the charge, which became his "guideline sentence." The downward departure was based on Monroe's cooperation.

After he was sentenced, Amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines took effect and reduced the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base by two levels. The District Court denied Monroe's motion for a sentence reduction without discussing the applicability of it to him, but it noted that a reduction wasn't appropriate.

Before ruling on if the amendment applied to Monroe's case, the Circuit Court determined that his plea agreement didn't prevent him from filing his motion. It determined that his motion for a reduction wasn't an appeal or collateral attack, as those were not allowed under the terms of his plea agreement. The federal judges disagreed with the government that motions brought under Section 3582(c)(2) are in essence collateral attacks, citing United States v. Chavez-Salias, 337 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2003).

The evidence in the instant case doesn't show Monroe agreed to give up his right to seek a reduction in the length of his sentence based on a retroactive change in the sentencing guidelines, nor does it show the parties meant for Section 3582(c)(2) motions to be considered collateral attacks, wrote Judge Kenneth Ripple.

Even though he could bring the motion under the terms of his plea agreement, the District Court was correct in finding the amendment didn't apply to Monroe. He's ineligible for the reduction because Section 3582(c)(2) only permits the District Court to modify a sentence where the applicable sentencing range had been lowered. The amendment had no effect on Monroe's case because he was sentenced in accordance to the mandatory minimum sentence, rather than with the sentencing range set up in the guidelines, wrote the judge. The Circuit judges concluded their holding in United States v. Poole, 550 F.3d 676 (7th Circ. 2008), decided after briefs were filed in the instant case, is determinative.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT