Some ugly play here by the Eleventh Circuit in a case I came across that otherwise holds for a defendant who appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2):
If, after examining [the complete record] the district court cannot determine Hamilton's drug quantity with enough specificity to decide whether Amendment 750 lowers his guidelines range, then Hamilton is ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 340–41 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). This, the Hamilton court explains, is because a defendant has the burden to show that the lower guideline range would apply if the listed amendment had been in effect at the time of original sentencing.
To review, then: A defendant who cannot meet his burden because the district court failed to make the clear finding it was required to make at initial sentencing is categorically barred from getting the relief he seeks. Got it.
Recent Comments
TGIFOMGIM RoundupTGIFOMGIM Roundup - Post-Training-Nonblogging Catching-Up Edition