United States v. D.M., No. 16-50243 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Although the Government agreed that defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction, it argued that the appeal was moot because defendant had been released from federal prison. The panel held that the appeal was not moot and that USSG 1.10(b)(2)(B) allows a court to consider a number of departures when calculating a reduction in sentence where the defendant has provided substantial assistance. The panel also held that defendant was entitled to the benefit of the rule of lenity because the Guideline was ambiguous. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The government agreed that the defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, which lowered the recommended sentence for drug offenses. The panel held that despite the defendant’s release from federal prison, the appeal was not moot. Agreeing with the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) allows a court to consider a number of departures when calculating a reduction in sentence where the defendant has provided substantial assistance, and the court is not limited to consideration only of the departure attributable to substantial assistance. The panel distinguished United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2016), which did not address § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), an exception to the policy statement otherwise set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a). The panel also concluded, alternatively, that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the rule of lenity because the Guideline was ambiguous. UNITED STATES V. D.M. 3
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.