Dillon v. United States

Background

In 1993 Percy Dillon, a federal prisoner, was convicted of crack and powder cocaine offenses and a firearms charge and sentenced to 322 months. Years later the Sentencing Commission reduced the guideline for crack cocaine and made that change retroactive. Dillon asked a court to lower his final sentence under the law that allows reductions when the Commission lowers a guideline, and he also asked for a further cut below the new range.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the rule from United States v. Booker — which made the Guidelines advisory in regular sentencing — also applies when courts decide reductions after a guideline is lowered. The Court said no. It read the statute as a narrow, two-step process: first follow the Commission’s instruction about how much the guideline range changes, then decide if the reduction should be granted using sentencing factors. Because the Commission’s policy told judges normally not to reduce below the amended range, judges may not treat that policy as merely advisory in these limited proceedings. The Court also said judges cannot use these proceedings to fix other original sentencing mistakes that were not affected by the guideline change.

Real world impact

The ruling means prisoners affected by the crack-guideline amendment generally receive only the reduction allowed by the Commission’s policy, not broader resentencing. Judges keep limited discretion to grant or deny reductions but must start with the amended range. The decision leaves room for future changes by Congress or the Commission.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens dissented, arguing Booker’s remedial rule should allow judges more discretion and warning that the Commission’s policy unduly limits courts and can sustain overly harsh sentences.