United States v. Wilson, No. 20-50015 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
In 2006, Wilson was sentenced to 352 months’ imprisonment for 11 counts of importation and sale of a controlled substance, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In 2015, pursuant to a stipulation under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), the court reduced Wilson’s sentence to 347 months, citing Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, which retroactively reduced the offense levels assigned to specified quantities of drugs. Wilson unsuccessfully sought reconsideration, arguing that to accomplish Amendment 782’s “full 2-point deduction,” he should have received the low end of the new Guidelines range--295 months.
Wilson again sought sentence modification under section 3582(c)(2), arguing that to effectuate the original sentencing judge’s intent to sentence Wilson to a low-end guideline sentence, the court should modify his current term of imprisonment.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. It is unclear whether Wilson is currently serving a term of imprisonment that is based, even in part, on a sentencing range that was lowered by Amendment 782. Assuming that Wilson is eligible to seek relief under 3582(c)(2), the judge considered the applicable section 3553(a) factors. Any error concerning the effect of Amendment 782 on the firearm offense was harmless. The decision was not substantively unreasonable; the judge was not required to give more weight to Wilson’s rehabilitative efforts than to the nature of Wilson’s conduct.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Vince Wilson’s second motion for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court (then Judge Takasugi) sentenced Wilson in 2006 to a total of 352 months for eleven counts of importation and sale of a controlled substance (Counts 1–11), one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 12), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 13) (grouped with Counts 1–11). In accordance with the parties’ joint stipulation under § 3582(c)(2), the district court (Judge Hatter) reduced Wilson’s sentence in 2015 to 347 months as a result of Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782 (2014), which retroactively reduced by two levels the offense levels assigned to specified quantities of drugs. In 2018, Wilson moved for reconsideration of the 2015 modification order, arguing that to accomplish Amendment 782’s “full 2-point deduction,” Judge Hatter should have given him the low end of the new Guidelines range for Counts 1–11 and 13, plus 60 months mandated for Count 12, for a total of 295 months. Judge Hatter denied that motion. In 2019, Wilson filed his second motion for sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2), arguing that in order to effectuate Judge Takasugi’s intent to sentence Wilson to a UNITED STATES V. WILSON 3 low-end guideline sentence, Judge Hatter should modify his current term of imprisonment so that the 52-month sentence for Count 13 ran concurrently with his sentence on Counts 1–11. Judge Hatter denied that motion. Although it is an open question whether Wilson is currently serving a term of imprisonment that is based, even in part, on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by Amendment 782, the panel assumed without deciding that Wilson is eligible to seek relief under § 3582(c)(2). Wilson argued that Judge Hatter erred in stating that there is no authority “that supports the proposition that Amendment 782’s changes to the drug quantity thresholds had any effect on his firearm conviction,” and that this error tainted his exercise of discretion in denying the motion for a sentence modification. In exercising his discretion to deny Wilson’s second § 3582(c)(2) motion, Judge Hatter assumed for the sake of argument that Wilson was eligible for a sentence reduction on Count 13 under Amendment 782. The panel wrote that given Judge Hatter’s consideration of the applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), any error in Judge Hatter’s view regarding the effect of Amendment 782 on the firearm offense was harmless. Wilson next argued that Judge Hatter failed to provide a sufficient explanation of his reasons for denying Wilson’s motion to modify his sentence. Assuming arguendo that Wilson was eligible for a further sentence modification in 2019, Judge Hatter stated that he would decline to exercise his discretion to modify the sentence in light of “the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and, inter alia, the nature of Wilson’s crimes.” Considering this explanation in light of 4 UNITED STATES V. WILSON the initial sentencing and the intuitive reasons why the district court may have made its sentencing determination, the panel concluded that Judge Hatter provided an adequate explanation for denying Wilson’s motion to modify his sentence so that the 52-month sentence for Count 13 ran concurrently with his sentence for Counts 1–11. Wilson argued that the denial of the motion was substantively unreasonable because, unlike the term originally imposed by Judge Takasugi, his current term of imprisonment is not at the low end of the applicable range for the grouped counts. The panel concluded that the denial of Wilson’s motion was not substantively unreasonable. The panel noted that there is no presumption that Judge Hatter would take the same approach in the § 3582(c) proceeding as that taken by Judge Takasugi in the original sentencing. The panel also wrote that Judge Hatter was not required to give more weight to Wilson’s rehabilitative efforts in prison than to the nature of Wilson’s conduct. Concurring, Judge Ikuta agreed with the majority that if Wilson were entitled to seek a sentence modification when he filed his second § 3582(c) motion in 2019, the district court did not err in denying his motion. But in her view, there is a simpler way to decide this appeal. Under the plain text of § 3582(c)(2), Wilson was not eligible to seek a further sentence modification in 2019 because Wilson was not serving “a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Rather, his term of imprisonment had been reduced in 2015 based on a sentencing range lowered by Amendment 782, and there has been no subsequent amendment lowering the applicable sentencing range. UNITED STATES V. WILSON 5 District Judge Vratil dissented because she would find that when the Federal Public Defender filed the 2019 motion which is the subject of this appeal, Wilson was still serving his 2006 sentence on Count 13 and—because Amendment 782 subsequently lowered the sentencing range for that count—he was eligible for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2). She wrote that the district court misapprehended the law when it held that Wilson was ineligible for relief under§ 3582(c)(2) because the original sentence on Count 13 was not “based on” Section 2D1.1 of the guidelines, which Amendment 782 subsequently lowered. She would also hold that the district court did not adequately explain its conclusion that even if Wilson were eligible for relief on Count 13, it would nevertheless deny such relief.
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.