Dillon v. U.S.
Justices will hear sentencing modification case (Dec. 7, 2009)
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the federal sentencing guidelines are binding when a federal judge imposes a new sentence.
A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania sentenced Percy Dillion to 322 months in prison on crack cocaine and firearm charges.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Dillon filed a series of postconviction motions on his sentence, all of which were denied.
In December 2007, Dillon filed a motion for a sentencing modification based on a recent, retroactively applicable amendment to federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Under the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in U.S. v. Booker, the guidelines are advisory only, but the court has never ruled on Booker's application to a sentence modification proceeding.
The district court granted Dillon's motion for the reduction of his term, resentencing him to 210 months in prison on the narcotics convictions, but rejecting his request for a sentence below the new guidelines range.
In June, a three-judge panel on the 3rd Circuit held that Booker should not apply in sentence modification proceedings, upholding Dillon's conviction and sentence.
On Dec. 7, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Question presented: (1) Whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are binding when a district court imposes a new sentence pursuant to a revised guideline range under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.(2) Whether during a § 3582(c)(2) sentencing, a district court is required to impose sentence based on an admittedly incorrectly calculated guideline range.
Justices limit scope of sentencing guidelines (June 17, 2010)
The Supreme Court held today that the federal sentencing guidelines are not binding when a federal judge imposes a new sentence.
A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania sentenced Percy Dillon to 322 months in prison on crack cocaine and firearm charges.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Dillon filed a series of post-conviction motions on his sentence, all of which were denied.
In December 2007, Dillon filed a motion for a sentencing modification based on a recent, retroactively applicable amendment to federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Under the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in U.S. v. Booker, the guidelines are advisory only, but the court has never ruled on Booker's application to a sentence modification proceeding.
The district court granted Dillon's motion for the reduction of his term, resentencing him to 210 months in prison on the narcotics convictions, but rejecting his request for a sentence below the new guidelines range.
In June, a three-judge panel on the 3rd Circuit held that Booker should not apply in sentence modification proceedings, upholding Dillon's conviction and sentence.
On June 17, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order in a 7-1 opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
"The statute’s text and narrow scope belie Dillon’s characterization of proceedings under §3582(c)(2) as 'resentencing' proceedings governed by the same principles as other sentencing proceedings," the justice wrote for the majority. "Instead, §3582(c)(2) authorizes only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence."
Justice John Paul Stevens authored the lone dissent. And Justice Samuel Alito, who used to sit on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in consideration of the case.
Question presented: (1) Whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are binding when a district court imposes a new sentence pursuant to a revised guideline range under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.(2) Whether during a § 3582(c)(2) sentencing, a district court is required to impose sentence based on an admittedly incorrectly calculated guideline range.