We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

YOU DON’T HAVE TO SAY MUCH, BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING…

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Chavez-Meza v. United States  that a judge ruling on an 18 USC 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence must say “enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-making authority.” Last week, the 4th Circuit put some meat on those bones, remanding two 3582(c)(2) cases for a more reasoned explanation from the district judge.

A 3582(c)(2) motion is a post-conviction motion permitted in very limited circumstances, where the U.S. Sentencing Commission has reduced a Guidelines level for an offense, and made that reduction retroactive under USSG §1B1.10. In the past decade, the only such reductions have been several rewrites of the drug quantity tables, that brought reduced sentences to thousands of federal inmates.

Paulette Martin is doing a life sentence for a major drug crime. She sought a 2-level reduction, which would make her eligible for a 360-month sentence, citing her prison record of achievement that even the government conceded was “among the best that it has seen.” But the district court denied her motion, with an explanation that was little more than “a recitation of Martin’s original criminal behavior.”

In a different case, Luis Mangual has health issues as well as an excellent prison record. When he became eligible for a reduction, the government argued he should be sentenced at the top of his amended range, solely because he was sentenced at the top of his range at his initial sentencing some years ago. The judge followed the government’s suggestion, never mentioning Luis’s health or prison record.

The 4th Circuit reversed both cases in a consolidated decision. It held that the sentencing judge’s terse explanation in denying Paulette “is not the standard… for sentence-reduction motions. The district court was content to memorialize Martin’s past transgressions without giving any weight to the multitude of redemptive measures that she has taken since she was initially sentenced to life in prison…” In Luis’s case, the Circuit panel said, “given that there is no reference to his new mitigation evidence, it is clear that the district court did not comply with the standards set forth in Chavez-Meza…”

The 4th said the district courts “must provide a rationale as to why two individuals who have placed themselves on a positive life trajectory, despite the challenges of a lengthy period of incarceration, should receive no relief for their rehabilitation.”

United States v. Martin, Case No. 17-6199, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5620 (4th Cir., Feb, 26, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root