Case No. 17-5716 | 8th Cir.
Defendants who offer substantial assistance to the government are eligible for sentence reductions. The question in Koons is whether a retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines entitles such defendants to further sentence reductions when their conduct was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence.
Koons consolidates the cases of five defendants charged with drug and firearm offenses. All five defendants were subject to statutory mandatory minimum sentences higher than those sentences calculated under the advisory sentencing guidelines. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2012), however, the courts reduced the defendants’ sentences below the mandatory minimums because they had provided substantial assistance to the government.
In 2014, an amendment to the sentencing guidelines reduced the advisory sentencing guidelines applicable to the defendants’ drug crimes. The Sentencing Commission made the amended guidelines retroactive. The defendants sought sentence reductions in district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), which provides that a district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence when that sentence is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” The district court denied relief, holding that the defendants were not eligible for sentence reductions based on the original advisory sentencing guidelines because the statutory mandatory minimums had superseded those guidelines. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Thus, as is the case in Hughes v. United States, which will be argued on the same day, Koons turns on the meaning of “based on.” Petitioners argue that their original sentences were “based on” the advisory sentencing guidelines because the courts were required to consult those guidelines, even though the statutory minimums ultimately negated them. Indeed, because the defendants provided substantial assistance to the government, Petitioners argue that the sentencing guidelines effectively displaced the mandatory minimums so that the final sentences were based on the guidelines.
In response, the Government contends that the mandatory minimums are statutory requirements that the Sentencing Commission is not empowered to alter. As a result, the Government contends, the original sentences were based on statute, not the advisory guidelines. Indeed, the Government argues that § 3553(e) only applies to sentences imposed according to statutory minimums, and thus only permits courts to take into account the assistance a defendant provided, rather than other factors such as the guidelines. Although the Sentencing Commission has taken the opposite position, the Government argues that the Commission’s policy statement is contrary to the law.