Koons v. United States

Background

Five people pleaded guilty to a methamphetamine conspiracy before the same judge and faced statutory mandatory minimum sentences under federal drug law. At sentencing the judge calculated the advisory Guidelines ranges but discarded them because each mandatory minimum exceeded the guideline range. The Government filed motions allowing below-minimum sentences because each defendant had substantially assisted in prosecuting others, and the court imposed sentences 25–45% below the mandatory minimums after considering factors tied to their cooperation.

Reasoning

The question was whether those final sentences were “based on” the now-lowered Guidelines ranges so the defendants could get retroactive reductions under the federal rule that allows cuts when Guidelines later fall. The Court said a Guidelines range must have played a relevant role in the judge’s decision for a sentence to be “based on” that range. Here the judge had discarded the ranges in favor of the mandatory minimums and the defendants’ cooperation, and the judge never relied on the original ranges when choosing the final sentences. The Court rejected arguments that calculating a range at the start, a supposed error at sentencing, the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, or concerns about disparities made the defendants eligible.

Real world impact

The decision means defendants who received below-mandatory-minimum sentences because they cooperated cannot obtain retroactive cuts based on later-lowered drug Guidelines. Identical defendants sentenced the same way today will also be ineligible, and courts will continue to treat mandatory minimums and cooperation as the controlling bases for those sentences.