Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

United States v. Johnson

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

May 21, 2013, Submitted; October 15, 2013, Decided

Docket No. 12-2313-cr

Opinion

 [*110]  JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a federal court may, in certain circumstances, reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment because of amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the "Guidelines"). This sentencing appeal concerns the application of section 3582(c)(2) in the unusual context of a combination of Guidelines amendments, an amended statutory mandatory minimum, and a substantial assistance departure from a  [*111]  mandatory minimum authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The appeal presents three issues: (1) whether the Defendant-Appellant is eligible  [**2] for any section 3582(c)(2) reduction, (2) whether a section 3553(e) departure from a mandatory minimum displaces the mandatory minimum for purposes of Guidelines calculations, and (3) whether the reductions in mandatory minimums made by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (the "FSA" or the "Act") apply to a defendant sentenced before the effective date of the FSA whose sentence was reduced after that date pursuant to section 3582(c)(2).

These issues arise on an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Matthew Johnson from the May 25, 2012, order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Chief Judge), granting his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 3582(c)(2). Chief Judge Skretny reduced Johnson's sentence from 87 months to 78 months. Johnson contends that the Court's calculation of the reduction was improper and should have resulted in a range of 57-71 months.

We conclude that Johnson was not eligible for a reduction under section 3582(c)(2), that the mandatory minimum applicable to Johnson has not been displaced, and that the FSA does not apply to Johnson. In the absence of a cross-appeal by the  [**3] Government, we affirm.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

732 F.3d 109 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20780 **; 2013 WL 5613771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MATTHEW F. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant, Monae Davis, Barrett B. Johnson, Shawn S. Johnson, Corey J. Rivers, Raheim Howell, Jennifer M. Gourley, Andrea Perkins, Kevin L. Glowacki, Richard D. Farnham, Sr., John A. Lee, Mark L. Burdick, David J. Thompson, Leroy W. Nupp, Jr., Mark W. Decker, Anna M. Benjamin, Scott Peters, Jimi Lin Gourley, Ryan V. Potter, Lori A. Carrow, Beth L. Saifakas, Defendants.

Subsequent History: As Corrected July 28, 2014.

Prior History: United States v. Johnson, 425 Fed. Appx. 66, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13814 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2011)

Disposition:  [**1] Appeal from the May 25, 2012, order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Chief Judge), granting a motion to reduce a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Appellant contends that he was entitled to a greater reduction.

Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

sentence, mandatory minimum, guideline, reduction, lowered, substantial assistance, adjusted, sentencing range, departure, levels, grams, minimum sentence, district court, eligible, cocaine, displaced, policy statement, two-level, term of imprisonment, statutory minimum, base offense, cocaine base, cross-appeal, offenses, quantity

Criminal Law & Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, De Novo Review, Sentencing, Corrections, Modifications & Reductions, Reductions Based on Amended Sentencing Ranges, Imposition of Sentence, General Overview, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Federal Questions