We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
A HOLDING OF CONSEQUENCE
A 9th Circuit decision handed down last Thursday appears arcane, but it is very consequential for current and future compassionate release and retroactive Guidelines reductions that will certainly be adopted in the future.
A decade ago, Jose Lizarraras-Chacon was convicted of heroin distribution. He entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement for 210 months. After the First Step Act passed, he filed for the 2014 Guidelines Amendment 782 two-level reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2). Jose pointed out to the court that after First Step, his prior state drug conviction the government had used to enhance his sentence with a 21 USC § 851 notice no longer counted as a felony drug case.
A § 3582(c)(2) motion requires a court to first consider whether a defendant’s sentencing range has gone down because of a retroactive Guidelines change. If it has, the court has to consider whether to reduce the sentence in light of the 18 USC § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Jose argued that the court should consider that fact he could no longer get enhanced under 21 USC § 851 if he were sentenced after First Step. The district court refused, saying it was not allowed to consider subsequent changes in the law when reaching a § 3582(c)(2) decision.
The 9th Circuit reversed, holding that a court’s discretionary decision under the § 3553(a) factors at step two of the § 3582(c)(2) inquiry “exceeds the limited scope of a resentencing adjustment applicable to step one.” While at step one, a district court may substitute only the new Guidelines amendments for the guideline provisions applied when the defendant was sentenced, “at step two, there are no similar limitations on what a district court may consider.”
“An underlying principle in federal judicial tradition is that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime,” the Circuit held. “In seeking to ensure that the punishment fit the offender, the Supreme Court has explained that judges should use the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics… It follows that in a § 3553(a) factor analysis, a district court must similarly use the fullest information possible concerning subsequent developments in the law, such as changes in sentencing guidelines, legislative changes to a mandatory minimum, and changes to a triggering predicate offense to ensure the punishment will fit the crime and critically, to ensure that the sentence imposed is also sufficient, but not greater than necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment; to afford adequate deterrence; and to protect the public.”
The Court’s analysis should apply equally to § 3553(a) factors being considered for compassionate releases. The decision means that when arguing whether a sentence is “just punishment” or provides deterrence, the fact that the sentence originally opposed would be unlawful if handed down today should have a major impact on a district court’s reasoning.
United States v. Lizarraras-Chacon, Case No. 20-30001, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 28823 (9th Cir., September 23, 2021)
– Thomas L. Root