Dillon v. U.S.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the federal sentencing guidelines are binding when a federal judge imposes a new sentence.

A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania sentenced Percy Dillion to 322 months in prison on crack cocaine and firearm charges.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Dillon filed a series of postconviction motions on his sentence, all of which were denied.

In December 2007, Dillon filed a motion for a sentencing modification based on a recent, retroactively applicable amendment to federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Under the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in U.S. v. Booker, the guidelines are advisory only, but the court has never ruled on Booker's application to a sentence modification proceeding.

The district court granted Dillon's motion for the reduction of his term, resentencing him to 210 months in prison on the narcotics convictions, but rejecting his request for a sentence below the new guidelines range.

In June, a three-judge panel on the 3rd Circuit held that Booker should not apply in sentence modification proceedings, upholding Dillon's conviction and sentence.

On Dec. 7, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Question presented: (1) 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.(2) Whether during a § 3582(c)(2) sentencing, a district court is required to impose sentence based on an admittedly incorrectly calculated guideline range.