United States v. Reeves, No. 12-3317 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to distributing five grams or more of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that it's holding in United States v. Johnson, that the court could not set aside a non-retroactivity determination as arbitrary and capricious, foreclosed defendant's argument that the Sentencing Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided not to make Amendment 709 retroactive. Because defendant was sentenced under the career offender provision, Amendments 750 and 759, which modified the drug quantity provision, were irrelevant. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the Fair Sentencing Act did not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced before August 3, 2010, and who sought a reduction in their sentences under section 3582(c)(2). In this case, defendant was sentenced in 2004; the statutory maximum associated with defendant's cocaine base offense in 2004 applied to his current section 3582(c)(2) proceedings; and his guideline range was the same today as it was in 2004 and, therefore, he was not eligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's argument that the Sentencing Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided not to give retroactive effect to Amendment 709 is foreclosed by this court's decision in U.S. v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013); defendant's sentence was based on his career offender status not on the quantity of crack involved, and Amendments 750 and 759 do not apply; this court joins the majority of circuits in holding that the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced before August 3, 2010 and who seek a reduction in their sentences under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.