The case has particularly important potential to affect perhaps tens of thousands of new sentencing proceedings for those convicted of dealing in crack cocaine, since the U.S. Sentencing Commission has revised downward the range of sentences for those crimes, and has made those changes retroactive. If judges have no discretion to set a sentence below the minimum in the new range (as they are allowed to do in initial sentencing), many individuals would not be allowed to take advantage of the reductions, or would at best receive significantly less benefit.”

The Third Circuit said no (opinion here.) Percy Dillon says Booker applies to all resentencings where a new sentence is imposed in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Justice Department says no. Interestingly, the Supreme Court took the case when there was no split in the circuits. All circuits have held the re-sentencing only allows the granting of the two level reduction. The defendant in this case, a first time offender who got 27 years, is a sympathetic one.

The questions presented:

I. Whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are binding when a district court imposes a new sentence pursuant to a revised guideline range under 18 U.S.C. §3582.

II. Whether during a § 3582©(2) sentencing, a district court is required to impose sentence based on an admittedly incorrectly calculated guideline range.

The documents:

• Percy Dillon's Brief
• DOJ brief
• Public Defenders Amicus Brief
• Washington Legal Foundation Amicus Brief
• US Sentencing Commission Amicus Brief (opposing Dillon's position)