Dillon v. United States

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DILLON v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 09–6338. Argued March 30, 2010—Decided June 17, 2010

In 1993, petitioner Dillon was convicted of, inter alia, crack and powder

cocaine offenses, which produced a base offense level of 38 and a

Guidelines range of 262-to-327 months’ imprisonment. The court

sentenced him at the bottom of the range for those counts. After the

Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines to reduce the base

offense level associated with each quantity of crack cocaine, USSG

Supp. App. C, Amdt. 706, and made that amendment retroactive,

USSG Supp. App. C, Amdt. 713, Dillon moved for a sentence reduc

tion under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2). That provision authorizes a

district court to reduce an otherwise final sentence pursuant to a

Guidelines amendment if a reduction is consistent with the Commis

sion’s policy statements. The relevant policy statement, USSG

§1B1.10, precludes a court from reducing a sentence “to a term that is

less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range” except in

limited circumstances. In addition to the two-level reduction author

ized by the amendment, Dillon sought a variance below the amended

Guidelines range, contending that United States v. Booker, 543 U. S.

220, authorized the exercise of such discretion. The District Court

imposed a sentence at the bottom of the revised range but declined to

grant a further reduction. Finding Booker inapplicable to §3582(c)(2)

proceedings, the court concluded that the Commission’s directives in

§1B1.10 constrained it to impose a sentence within the amended

Guidelines range. The Third Circuit affirmed.

Held: Booker’s holdings do not apply to §3582(c)(2) proceedings and

therefore do not require treating §1B1.10(b) as advisory. Pp. 6–14.

(a) The statute’s text and narrow scope belie Dillon’s characteriza

tion of proceedings under §3582(c)(2) as “resentencing” proceedings

governed by the same principles as other sentencing proceedings. In

2 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

stead, §3582(c)(2) authorizes only a limited adjustment to an other

wise final sentence. This conclusion is further supported by the sub

stantial role Congress gave the Commission with respect to sentence

modification proceedings, charging it with determining whether and

to what extent a Guidelines amendment will be retroactive, 28

U. S. C. §994(u), and authorizing a court to grant a reduction under

§3582(c)(2) only “if [it] is consistent with applicable policy statements

issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Section 3582(c)(2) estab

lishes a two-step inquiry: A court must (1) determine the scope of the

reduction, if any, authorized by §1B1.10, and then (2) consider

whether the authorized reduction is warranted according to the ap

plicable §3553(a) factors. At step one, the court must follow the

Commission’s instructions in §1B1.10 to impose a term of imprison

ment within the amended Guidelines range unless the sentencing

court originally imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. §1B1.10(b)(2).

Because reference to §3553(a) is appropriate only at step two, that

provision does not transform §3582(c)(2) proceedings into plenary re

sentencing proceedings. Pp. 6–10.

(b) Given §3582(c)(2)’s limited scope and purpose, proceedings un

der that section do not implicate Booker. The section represents a

congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of

later enacted adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Guide

lines. Taking the original sentence as given, any facts found by a

judge at a §3582(c)(2) proceeding do not serve to increase the pre

scribed range of punishment; instead, they affect only the judge’s ex

ercise of discretion within that range. That exercise does not contra

vene the Sixth Amendment, even if it is informed by judge-found

facts. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 481. Thus, Dillon’s

Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the District Court’s

adherence to §1B1.10’s instruction to consider a reduction only within

the amended Guidelines range. Dillon’s argument that Booker’s re

medial opinion nonetheless requires the Guidelines to be treated as

advisory in such proceedings is unpersuasive given that proceedings

under §3582(c)(2) are readily distinguishable from other sentencing

proceedings. Pp. 10–13.

(c) Also rejected is Dillon’s argument that the District Court should

have corrected other mistakes in his original sentence, namely, a

Booker error resulting from the initial sentencing court’s treatment of

the Guidelines as mandatory and an alleged error in the calculation

of his criminal-history category. Because those aspects of Dillon’s

sentence were not affected by the crack-cocaine Guidelines amend

ment, they are outside the scope of the §3582(c)(2) proceeding, and

the District Court properly declined to address them. Pp. 13–14.

572 F. 3d 146, affirmed.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

Syllabus

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,

joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part

in the decision of the case.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 09–6338

_________________

PERCY DILLON, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[June 17, 2010]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

A federal court generally “may not modify a term of

imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U. S. C.

§3582(c). Congress has provided an exception to that rule

“in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a

term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that

has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Com

mission.” §3582(c)(2). In those circumstances, §3582(c)(2)

authorizes a court to reduce the term of imprisonment “if

such a reduction is consistent with” applicable Commis

sion policy statements. The policy statement governing

§3582(c)(2) proceedings instructs courts not to reduce a

term of imprisonment below the minimum of an amended

sentencing range except to the extent the original term of

imprisonment was below the range then applicable. See

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual

§1B1.10(b)(2) (Nov. 2009) (USSG). This case presents the

question whether our decision in United States v. Booker,

543 U. S. 220 (2005), which rendered the Guidelines advi

sory to remedy the Sixth Amendment problems associated

with a mandatory sentencing regime, requires treating

§1B1.10(b) as nonbinding. We conclude that Booker does

2 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

not demand that result.

I

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA or Act), 98

Stat. 1987, established the Sentencing Commission and

authorized it to promulgate Sentencing Guidelines and to

issue policy statements regarding the Guidelines’ applica

tion. See 28 U. S. C. §§991, 994(a). The Act also charged

the Commission with periodically reviewing and revising

the Guidelines. See §994(o). When a revision reduces the

Guidelines range for a given offense, the Commission must

determine “in what circumstances and by what amount

the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment

for the offense may be reduced.” §994(u).

As enacted, the SRA made the Sentencing Guidelines

binding. See Booker, 543 U. S., at 233–234. Except in

limited circumstances, district courts lacked discretion to

depart from the Guidelines range. See Burns v. United

States, 501 U. S. 129, 133 (1991). Under that regime, facts

found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence often

increased the mandatory Guidelines range and permitted

the judge to impose a sentence greater than that sup

ported by the facts established by the jury verdict or guilty

plea. See Booker, 543 U. S., at 235. We held in Booker

that treating the Guidelines as mandatory in these cir

cumstances violated the Sixth Amendment right of crimi

nal defendants to be tried by a jury and to have every

element of an offense proved by the Government beyond a

reasonable doubt. Id., at 243–244.

To remedy the constitutional problem, we rendered the

Guidelines advisory by invalidating two provisions of the

SRA: 18 U. S. C. §3553(b)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), which

generally required a sentencing court to impose a sentence

within the applicable Guidelines range, and §3742(e)

(2000 ed. and Supp. IV), which prescribed the standard of

review on appeal, including de novo review of Guidelines

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

Opinion of the Court

departures. 543 U. S., at 259. “With these two sections

excised (and statutory cross-references to the two sections

consequently invalidated),” we held that “the remainder of

the Act satisfies the Court’s constitutional requirements.”

Ibid. Booker thus left intact other provisions of the SRA,

including those giving the Commission authority to revise

the Guidelines, 28 U. S. C. §994(o) (2006 ed.), and to de

termine when and to what extent a revision will be retro

active, §994(u).

With respect to drug-trafficking offenses, the Sentencing

Guidelines establish a defendant’s base offense level ac

cording to the type and weight of the drug. See USSG

§§2D1.1(a), (c). When the Commission first promulgated

the Guidelines in 1987, it adopted the 100-to-1 ratio se

lected by Congress in setting mandatory minimum sen

tences in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3207.

Under that framework, the Commission “treated every

gram of crack cocaine as the equivalent of 100 grams of

powder cocaine.” Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S.

85, 96 (2007). The Commission later sought to alleviate

the disparity produced by this ratio. After several failed

attempts at reform, see id., at 99, the Commission in 2007

amended the Guidelines to reduce by two levels the base

offense level associated with each quantity of crack co

caine. See USSG Supp. App. C, Amdt. 706 (effective Nov.

1, 2007). In 2008, the Commission made that amendment

retroactive. See id., Amdt. 713 (effective Mar. 3, 2008).

When the Commission makes a Guidelines amendment

retroactive, 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2) authorizes a district

court to reduce an otherwise final sentence that is based

on the amended provision. Any reduction must be consis

tent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sen

tencing Commission. The relevant policy statement,

USSG §1B1.10, instructs courts proceeding under

§3582(c)(2) to substitute the amended Guidelines range

while “leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions

4 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

unaffected.” §1B1.10(b)(1).1 Under §3582(c)(2), a court

may then grant a reduction within the amended Guide

lines range if it determines that one is warranted “after

considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the

extent that they are applicable.”2 Except in limited cir

cumstances, however, §1B1.10(b)(2)(A) forecloses a court

acting under §3582(c)(2) from reducing a sentence “to a

term that is less than the minimum of the amended guide

line range.”

II

A jury convicted petitioner Percy Dillon in 1993 of con

spiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to

distribute more than 500 grams of powder cocaine and

more than 50 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21

U. S. C. §846, possession with the intent to distribute

more than 500 grams of powder cocaine in violation of

§841(a)(1), and use of a firearm during and in relation to a

drug-trafficking offense in violation of 18 U. S. C.

§924(c)(1). Dillon’s convictions exposed him to a statutory

sentencing range of 10 years to life for the conspiracy, 5

to-40 years for cocaine possession, and a mandatory mini

mum sentence of 5 years for the firearm offense, to be

served consecutively to the sentence for the drug offenses.

——————

1 The Sentencing Commission substantially revised §1B1.10 in March

2008, see USSG Supp. App. C, Amdt. 712 (Nov. 2009) (effective Mar. 3,

2008), roughly three months before the District Court’s decision in this

case. Because the current version of the relevant Guidelines provisions

is not meaningfully different from the version in effect at the time of

the District Court’s decision, references in this opinion are to the

current, 2009 edition of the Guidelines.

2 Section 3553(a) provides that a “court shall impose a sentence suffi

cient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set

forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection,” and it enumerates several

factors a court “shall consider” in determining an appropriate sentence,

including “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history

and characteristics of the defendant,” §3553(a)(1).

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 5

Opinion of the Court

At sentencing, the District Court made additional find

ings of fact and concluded that Dillon was responsible for

1.5 kilograms of crack and 1.6 kilograms of powder co

caine. Under USSG §2D1.1, those drug quantities pro

duced a base offense level of 38. After offsetting adjust

ments for acceptance of responsibility, §3E1.1, and

reckless endangerment during flight, §3C1.2, Dillon’s total

offense level remained 38. Coupled with a criminal

history category of II,3 that offense level produced a then

mandatory Guidelines range of 262-to-327 months’ im

prisonment for the drug counts.

The court sentenced Dillon at the bottom of the Guide

lines range for those counts, followed by a mandatory 60

month sentence for the firearm count, for a total sentence

of 322 months’ imprisonment. At Dillon’s sentencing, the

court described the term of imprisonment as “entirely too

high for the crime [Dillon] committed.” App. 13. Perceiv

ing no basis for departing from the then-mandatory Sen

tencing Guidelines, the District Court felt constrained to

impose a sentence within the prescribed range. The Court

of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Dillon’s convic

tions and sentence on appeal. See 100 F. 3d 949 (1996).

After the Sentencing Commission made the amendment

to the crack-cocaine Guidelines retroactive in 2008, Dillon

filed a pro se motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to

§3582(c)(2). In the motion, Dillon asked the court to grant

not just the two-level reduction authorized by the amend

ment but also a further reduction consistent with the

sentencing factors found in §3553(a). Based largely on his

postsentencing conduct, including his determined pursuit

of educational and community-outreach opportunities,

——————

3 The Probation Office based Dillon’s criminal-history assessment on

two prior misdemeanor convictions, one for possession of marijuana and

one for resisting arrest. Dillon did not object to that calculation of his

criminal-history score.

6 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

Dillon contended that a variance from the amended Guide

lines range was warranted in his case. He further urged

that, after Booker, the court was authorized to grant such

a variance because the amended Guidelines range was

advisory notwithstanding any contrary statement in

§1B1.10.

The District Court reduced Dillon’s sentence to 270

months—the term at the bottom of the revised Guidelines

range.4 But the court declined to go further. Concluding

that the sentencing proceedings at issue in Booker are

readily distinguishable from those under §3582(c)(2), the

court found Booker’s holdings inapplicable to the instant

proceeding and accordingly held that it lacked authority to

impose a sentence inconsistent with §1B1.10.

The Third Circuit affirmed. 572 F. 3d 146, 150 (2009).

The court noted that §3582(c)(2) is codified in a different

section than the provisions invalidated in Booker and

contains no cross-reference to those provisions. Finding

no other indication that Booker “obviate[d] the congres

sional directive in §3582(c)(2) that a sentence reduction

pursuant to that section be consistent with Sentencing

Commission policy statements,” 572 F. 3d, at 149, the

Third Circuit held that §1B1.10 is binding. It therefore

agreed that the District Court lacked authority to reduce

Dillon’s sentence below the amended Guidelines range.

We granted certiorari to consider Booker’s applicability

to §3582(c)(2) proceedings. 558 U. S. ___ (2009).

III

A

“[A] judgment of conviction that includes [a sentence of

imprisonment] constitutes a final judgment” and may not

be modified by a district court except in limited circum

——————

4 The revised sentence reflects a 210-month term of imprisonment for

the narcotics offenses and a mandatory, consecutive 60-month term for

the firearm offense.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 7

Opinion of the Court

stances. §3582(b). Section 3582(c)(2) establishes an ex

ception to the general rule of finality “in the case of a

defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprison

ment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to

28 U. S. C. §994(o)” and made retroactive pursuant to

§994(u). In such cases, Congress has authorized courts to

“reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the

factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they

are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with appli

cable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commis

sion.” §3582(c)(2).

Characterizing proceedings under §3582(c)(2) as “resen

tencing” proceedings, Dillon contends that “[t]here is no

practical or functional difference between a resentencing

pursuant to §3582(c)(2) and any other resentencing.” Brief

for Petitioner 18. Accordingly, Dillon urges, the same

principles that govern other sentencing proceedings like

wise govern §3582(c)(2) proceedings, and courts have

authority under §3582(c)(2) to vary from the revised

Guidelines range consistent with §3553(a), see

Kimbrough, 552 U. S., at 101. Dillon cites as support for

this view §3582(c)(2)’s instruction to consider the factors

in §3553(a) in determining whether a sentence reduction

is warranted. Under Dillon’s approach, Booker would

preclude the Commission from issuing a policy statement

that generally forecloses below-Guidelines sentences at

§3582(c)(2) proceedings, as USSG §1B1.10 purports to do.

Dillon thus asks us to excise the mandatory language of

§1B1.10(b)(2)(A) and treat that provision as advisory, just

as we did the offending statutory provisions in Booker.

The language of §3582(c)(2) belies Dillon’s characteriza

tion of proceedings under that section. By its terms,

§3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentencing or resentenc

ing proceeding. Instead, it provides for the “modif[ication

of] a term of imprisonment” by giving courts the power to

8 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

“reduce” an otherwise final sentence in circumstances

specified by the Commission. Compare 28 U. S. C.

§994(a)(2)(C) (referring to §3582(c)(2) as a “sentence modi

fication provisio[n]”), with 18 U. S. C. §3742(f) (authoriz

ing courts of appeals to remand “for further sentencing”

upon a finding of error), and §3742(g) (establishing the

terms of “sentencing upon remand” and describing the

proceeding as a “resentenc[ing]” (capitalization omitted)).

It is also notable that the provision applies only to a lim

ited class of prisoners—namely, those whose sentence was

based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by the

Commission. Section 3582(c)(2)’s text, together with its

narrow scope, shows that Congress intended to authorize

only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence

and not a plenary resentencing proceeding.

The substantial role Congress gave the Commission

with respect to sentence-modification proceedings further

supports this conclusion. The SRA charges the Commis

sion both with deciding whether to amend the Guidelines,

§994(o), and with determining whether and to what extent

an amendment will be retroactive, §994(u).5 A court’s

power under §3582(c)(2) thus depends in the first instance

on the Commission’s decision not just to amend the Guide

lines but to make the amendment retroactive. The court is

also constrained by the Commission’s statements dictating

“by what amount” the sentence of a prisoner serving a

term of imprisonment affected by the amendment “may be

reduced.” §994(u); see also Braxton v. United States, 500

U. S. 344, 348 (1991) (noting that the Commission imple

mented that power through §1B1.10).

Read in this context, §3582(c)(2)’s reference to §3553(a)

——————

5 We

do not respond to the dissent’s separation-of-powers discussion,

see post, at 11–16 (opinion of STEVENS, J.), as that issue is not fairly

encompassed within the questions presented and was not briefed by the

parties.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 9

Opinion of the Court

does not undermine our narrow view of proceedings under

the former provision. Section 3582(c)(2) instructs a dis

trict court to “conside[r] the factors set forth in section

3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” but it

authorizes a reduction on that basis only “if such a reduc

tion is consistent with applicable policy statements issued

by the Sentencing Commission”—namely, §1B1.10. The

statute thus establishes a two-step inquiry. A court must

first determine that a reduction is consistent with §1B1.10

before it may consider whether the authorized reduction is

warranted, either in whole or in part, according to the

factors set forth in §3553(a).

Following this two-step approach, a district court pro

ceeding under §3582(c)(2) does not impose a new sentence

in the usual sense. At step one, §3582(c)(2) requires the

court to follow the Commission’s instructions in §1B1.10 to

determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modifi

cation and the extent of the reduction authorized. Specifi

cally, §1B1.10(b)(1) requires the court to begin by “deter

min[ing] the amended guideline range that would have

been applicable to the defendant” had the relevant

amendment been in effect at the time of the initial sen

tencing. “In making such determination, the court shall

substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for

the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied

when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all

other guideline application decisions unaffected.” Ibid.

Consistent with the limited nature of §3582(c)(2) pro

ceedings, §1B1.10(b)(2) also confines the extent of the

reduction authorized. Courts generally may “not reduce

the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U. S. C.

§3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of

the amended guideline range” produced by the substitu

tion. §1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Only if the sentencing court origi

nally imposed a term of imprisonment below the Guide

lines range does §1B1.10 authorize a court proceeding

10 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

under §3582(c)(2) to impose a term “comparably” below the

amended range. §1B1.10(b)(2)(B).

At step two of the inquiry, §3582(c)(2) instructs a court

to consider any applicable §3553(a) factors and determine

whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by

reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted

in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of

the case. Because reference to §3553(a) is appropriate

only at the second step of this circumscribed inquiry, it

cannot serve to transform the proceedings under

§3582(c)(2) into plenary resentencing proceedings.

This understanding of §3582(c)(2) as a narrow exception

to the rule of finality finds further support outside the

statute. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires

that a defendant be present at “sentencing,” see Rule

43(a)(3), but it excludes from that requirement proceed

ings that “involv[e] the correction or reduction of sentence

under Rule 35 or 18 U. S. C. §3582(c),” Rule 43(b)(4). Like

§3582(c)(2), Rule 35 delineates a limited set of circum

stances in which a sentence may be corrected or reduced.

Specifically, it authorizes a court to “correct a sentence

that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear

error” within 14 days after sentencing, Rule 35(a), and it

authorizes a reduction for substantial assistance on the

Government’s motion, Rule 35(b). Rule 43 therefore sets

the proceedings authorized by §3582(c)(2) and Rule 35

apart from other sentencing proceedings.

B

Given the limited scope and purpose of §3582(c)(2), we

conclude that proceedings under that section do not impli

cate the interests identified in Booker. Notably, the sen

tence-modification proceedings authorized by §3582(c)(2)

are not constitutionally compelled. We are aware of no

constitutional requirement of retroactivity that entitles

defendants sentenced to a term of imprisonment to the

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 11

Opinion of the Court

benefit of subsequent Guidelines amendments. Rather,

§3582(c)(2) represents a congressional act of lenity in

tended to give prisoners the benefit of later enacted ad

justments to the judgments reflected in the Guidelines.

Viewed that way, proceedings under §3582(c)(2) do not

implicate the Sixth Amendment right to have essential

facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Taking

the original sentence as given, any facts found by a judge

at a §3582(c)(2) proceeding do not serve to increase the

prescribed range of punishment; instead, they affect only

the judge’s exercise of discretion within that range.

“[J]udges in this country have long exercised discretion of

this nature in imposing sentence within [established]

limits in the individual case,” and the exercise of such

discretion does not contravene the Sixth Amendment even

if it is informed by judge-found facts. Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 481 (2000) (emphasis in original).

Because §3582(c)(2) proceedings give judges no more than

this circumscribed discretion, “[t]here is no encroachment

here by the judge upon facts historically found by the jury,

nor any threat to the jury’s domain as a bulwark at trial

between the State and the accused.” Oregon v. Ice, 555

U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 8). Accordingly, Dillon’s

Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the District

Court’s adherence to the instruction in §1B1.10 to consider

a reduction only within the amended Guidelines range.

Dillon contends that, even if §3582(c)(2) does not impli

cate the constitutional rights vindicated in Booker—

something the dissent appears to concede—the remedial

aspect of the Court’s decision applies to proceedings under

that section and requires that the Guidelines be treated as

advisory in such proceedings just as they are in other

sentencing proceedings. In support of his position, Dillon

invokes the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in United States v.

12 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

Hicks, 472 F. 3d 1167, 1170 (2007).6 Relying on our rejec

tion in Booker of a remedy that would have made the

Guidelines advisory only in certain cases—namely, when

treating them as binding would run afoul of the Sixth

Amendment, see 543 U. S., at 265–267—the Ninth Circuit

held that Booker precludes treating the Guidelines as

mandatory for purposes of §3582(c)(2) and advisory in

other contexts, see Hicks, 472 F. 3d, at 1171–1172.

This argument is unpersuasive. The incomplete remedy

we rejected in Booker would have required courts to treat

the Guidelines differently in similar proceedings, leading

potentially to unfair results and considerable administra

tive challenges. See 543 U. S., at 266. As already ex

plained, the sentence-modification proceedings authorized

by §3582(c)(2) are readily distinguishable from other

sentencing proceedings. Given the substantially different

purpose of §3582(c)(2) and the circumscribed nature of

proceedings under that section, requiring courts to honor

§1B1.10(b)(2)’s instruction not to depart from the amended

Guidelines range at such proceedings will create none of

the confusion or unfairness that led us in Booker to reject

the Government’s argument for a partial fix.

The dissent’s contrary conclusion rests on two erroneous

premises. First, the dissent ignores the fundamental

differences between sentencing and sentence-modification

proceedings and asserts without explanation that

“[n]othing turns on” the distinction between them. Post,

at 11. For the reasons stated above, the statutory differ

ences between the proceedings are highly significant.

Second, the dissent gives short shrift to the fact that,

after Booker, the Commission retains at least some au

——————

6 The Ninth Circuit subsequently agreed to consider en banc Booker’s

applicability to §3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States v. Fox, 583

F. 3d 596 (2009). The matter was stayed pending our decision in this

case. No. 08–30445 (CA9, Dec. 8, 2009).

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 13

Opinion of the Court

thority to bind the courts. Through §994(u), Congress

charged the Commission with determining “in what cir

cumstances and by what amount” the sentences of prison

ers affected by Guidelines amendments “may be reduced.”

No one disputes that the Commission’s retroactivity de

terminations made pursuant to the first part of that au

thorization are binding. See post, at 17, and n. 8. This

aspect of the Commission’s power emphatically under

mines the dissent’s insistence that the Guidelines after

Booker are “completely advisory.” Post, at 9. Moreover,

while the dissent criticizes our approach for leaving the

Commission with only the “the tiniest sliver of lawmaking

power,” post, at 11, the dissent would leave the Commis

sion with an even smaller and less explicable sliver by

dissecting the authority granted by §994(u).

For all of these reasons, we conclude that neither

Booker’s constitutional nor remedial holding requires the

result that Dillon urges.

IV

Dillon additionally contends that the District Court

erred in failing to correct two mistakes in his original

sentence. Under his view of §3582(c)(2), a district court is

required to recalculate a defendant’s sentence. Thus, any

mistakes committed at the initial sentencing are imposed

anew if they are not corrected. According to Dillon, the

District Court in the instant proceeding should have cor

rected the Booker error that resulted from the initial

sentencing court’s treatment of the Guidelines as manda

tory, and it should have adjusted his criminal-history

category, which he now contends was erroneously inflated.

Dillon’s arguments in this regard are premised on the

same misunderstanding of the scope of §3582(c)(2) pro

ceedings dispelled above. As noted, §3582(c)(2) does not

authorize a resentencing. Instead, it permits a sentence

reduction within the narrow bounds established by the

14 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

Commission. The relevant policy statement instructs that

a court proceeding under §3582(c)(2) “shall substitute” the

amended Guidelines range for the initial range “and shall

leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.”

§1B1.10(b)(1). Because the aspects of his sentence that

Dillon seeks to correct were not affected by the Commis

sion’s amendment to §2D1.1, they are outside the scope of

the proceeding authorized by §3582(c)(2), and the District

Court properly declined to address them.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of

Appeals is

Affirmed.

JUSTICE ALITO took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

STEVENS, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 09–6338

_________________

PERCY DILLON, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[June 17, 2010]

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

When sentencing petitioner Percy Dillon for crack co­

caine-related offenses in 1993, the District Court stated

that the punishment Dillon received was “entirely too high

for the crime [he] committed.” App. 13. Bound by a sen­

tencing regime that was mandatory at the time, the judge

had no choice but to sentence Dillon to 322 months of

imprisonment—nearly 27 years behind bars. The judge

later explained that, were it within his discretion, he

would have sentenced Dillon to 5 years of imprisonment.

Id., at 62. Had Dillon been sentenced after our decision in

United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005), the judge

would have had that discretion. Instead, the District

Court was compelled to mete out a punishment that it

believed to be grossly disproportionate to the offense and,

therefore, “greater than necessary” to meet the goals of

our criminal justice system, 18 U. S. C. §3553(a).

The punishment Dillon received was so high, in part,

because at the time of his conviction our drug laws pun­

ished crack cocaine offenses 100 times more severely than

powder cocaine offenses. In 2007, as the Court explains,

see ante, at 3, the United States Sentencing Commission

(Commission) proposed a partial fix to this disparity,

lowering its Guidelines Manual1 ranges for crack cocaine

——————

1 The Guidelines Manual itself contains two types of provisions:

2 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

offenses to a 20:1 ratio. See United States Sentencing

Commission, Guidelines Manual Supp. App. C, Amdt. 706

(Nov. 2009) (USSG) (effective Nov. 1, 2007). Pursuant to

its congressional mandate, see 28 U. S. C. §994(u), the

Commission made this change retroactive for those indi­

viduals, like Dillon, who were still serving sentences for

crack cocaine offenses. See USSG Supp. App. C, Amdt.

713 (effective Mar. 3, 2008).

Although Dillon does not have a constitutional right to

obtain the benefit of the Commission’s change, it is undis­

puted that he has a statutory right to do so. Under 18

U. S. C. §3582(c)(2), a federal prisoner “who has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentenc­

ing range that has subsequently been lowered” by the

Commission may seek a sentence reduction, but only after

the court “consider[s] the factors set forth in section

3553(a),” and only “if such a reduction is consistent with

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” Dillon sought such relief. His 322-month

sentence was reduced to a 270-month sentence—still 17½

years more than the sentencing judge thought necessary

as an initial matter.

In his §3582(c)(2) proceeding, Dillon alleged that his

circumstances warranted an additional reduction in light

of the fact that his sentence was “greater than necessary”

to effectuate the goals of our sentencing system, §3553(a).

He also emphasized that he has been a model inmate

during his 17 years in federal prison. Once again, how­

ever, the District Court felt that its hands were tied, this

——————

guidelines, see 28 U. S. C. §994(a)(1), and policy statements, see

§944(a)(2). I use “Guidelines” in this opinion to refer to both the guide­

lines as described in §994(a)(1), as well as more generally to all of the

provisions in the Guidelines Manual. The section numbers of both

types of provisions are enumerated identically within the Commission’s

Guidelines Manual, but their effects, as discussed in more detail herein,

are different.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

STEVENS, J., dissenting

time because USSG §1B1.10(b)(2) purports to place a

mandatory limit on the extent of any sentence reduction

that a court may order pursuant to §3582(c)(2). And so,

giving the Commission’s statement the effect of law, the

District Court denied Dillon further relief.

Today, the Court holds that in this one limited nook of

sentencing law, the Commission retains the power to bind

judges that we struck down in Booker. In my view, the

Court’s decision to treat the Commission’s policy state­

ment as a mandatory command rather than an advisory

recommendation is unfaithful to Booker. It is also on

dubious constitutional footing, as it permits the Commis­

sion to exercise a barely constrained form of lawmaking

authority. And it is manifestly unjust. I would therefore

hold that in the context of a §3582(c)(2) sentence modifica­

tion proceeding, the District Court may consider, but is

not bound by, any applicable policy statements promul­

gated by the Commission. In other words, I would apply

Booker’s remedial holding to §3582(c)(2) proceedings.

I

Although I did not join JUSTICE BREYER’s remedial

opinion for the Court in Booker, it is nevertheless clear to

me that its scope applies to §3582(c)(2) proceedings.

As an initial matter, it is of no moment that the Booker

Court did not excise any portion of §3582 when crafting its

remedy. At the time, there was nothing in §3582(c)(2)—

separate and apart from the Guidelines’ general manda­

tory nature—that would have limited the District Court’s

discretion in a §3582(c)(2) proceeding. There was, conse­

quently, nothing that needed excising. Relief under

§3582(c)(2) is available if it is “consistent with” the Com­

mission’s related policy statement. And when we decided

Booker, the particular policy statement at issue,

4 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

§1B1.10(b), had no explicit binding effect.2

Prior to our decision in Booker, the Guidelines were

mandatory only by virtue of congressional mandate, and

not by virtue of Commission decree. See 18 U. S. C.

§3553(b)(1). Following Booker, the Commission’s policy

statement in §1B1.10 took effect in March 2008. That

statement, I will explain more fully in Part II, infra, is

now the only source of binding authority in §3582(c)(2)

proceedings, as it purports to have the effect of reinstating

a mandatory Guidelines regime within the context of a

sentence modification proceeding. It is now the Commis­

sion’s policy statement, and not an explicit congressional

mandate, that makes the Guidelines ranges binding under

§3582(c)(2).

As a matter of textual analysis, divorced from judicial

precedent, it is certainly reasonable for the Court to find

that the Commission can set mandatory limits on sentence

reductions under §3582(c)(2). But it is a mistake, in my

view, to take such a narrow approach to the question

presented by this case. The Court has turned a blind eye

to the fundamental sea-change that was our decision in

Booker.

——————

2 From 1989 to 1994, the policy statement in §1B1.10 also contained

what could be described fairly as a limitation on the “amount” of an

available sentence reduction. See USSG §1B1.10(c)(2) (Nov. 1990) (“[A]

reduction in a defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . may, in no event,

exceed the number of months by which the maximum of the guideline

range applicable to the defendant . . . has been lowered”). In 1994, as

part of Amendment 504 to the Guidelines Manual, the Commission

deleted this provision, explaining that this “rather complex subsection”

was an “unnecessary restriction on the court’s consideration of a

revised sentence.” USSG, App. C, Amdt. 504 (effective Nov. 1, 1994).

Later, in an “Application Note,” the Commission indicated that “the

amended guideline range” “limit[s] the extent to which an eligible

defendant’s sentence may be reduced.” Id., Amdt. 548 (effective Nov. 1,

1997). The bottom line is that it was the Guidelines’ mandatory nature,

and not the effect of a policy statement, that made the Guidelines

ranges binding in an 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2) proceeding.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 5

STEVENS, J., dissenting

It is useful to put Booker in context. During the delib­

erations that led to the enactment of the Sentencing Re­

form Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. §3551 et seq., 28 U. S. C.

§991, et seq., Congress considered—and rejected—a pro­

posal that would have made the Guidelines only advisory.

See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 387 (1989).

Ultimately, the decision to authorize the Commission to

issue rules that “have the force and effect of laws” gener­

ated a serious debate over the constitutionality of the

Commission itself. See id., at 413 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).

While we resolved that constitutional debate in the

Commission’s favor in Mistretta, it became apparent dur­

ing the next two decades that the mandatory character of

the Guidelines, coupled with the practice of judicial fact­

finding, not only produced a host of excessively severe

sentences but also created an unacceptable risk of depriv­

ing defendants of long-settled constitutional protections.

See, e.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490

(2000) (holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior convic­

tion, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond

the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a

jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”); Ring v.

Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 602 (2002) (holding that “[i]f a

State makes an increase in a defendant’s authorized pun­

ishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no

matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury

beyond a reasonable doubt”); Blakely v. Washington, 542

U. S. 296, 304 (2004) (holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts

punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow,

the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes

essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his

proper authority” (citation omitted)).

Over a series of cases, we arrived at our present under­

standing of determinate sentencing schemes: They are

constitutionally infirm if they mandate enhanced punish­

ments based on facts found only by a judge by a prepon­

6 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

derance of the evidence. By restoring the principles out­

lined in landmark cases such as In re Winship, 397 U. S.

358 (1970), Apprendi and its progeny fundamentally

changed the landscape of modern sentencing law,3 and in

so doing paved the way for Booker.

The Booker Court considered whether the Sentencing

Reform Act’s mandatory determinate sentencing scheme

infringed the jury-trial right. In the first of two opinions,

we held that the two applications of the Guidelines before

us violated the Sixth Amendment because the sentencing

judge in each case imposed a more severe sentence than

the facts found by the jury warranted. 543 U. S., at 235.

We recognized that if the Guidelines “could be read as

merely advisory provisions that recommended, rather

than required, the selection of particular sentences in

response to differing sets of facts, their use would not

implicate the Sixth Amendment.” Id., at 233. But we

rejected such an advisory reading of the Guidelines, as

they then stood. Id., at 234. To satisfy constitutional

guarantees, we explained that any fact that has the effect

of increasing the mandatory range must be “established by

a plea of guilty or . . . must be admitted by the defendant

or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at

244. Otherwise, the sentence would violate the Sixth (and

the Fifth) Amendment.

In light of the potential for mandatory Guidelines sen­

tences to violate the Constitution, the Court had to elect

among possible remedies. As I explained in my dissent

from the Court’s second Booker opinion (the remedial one),

there was no need to find any constitutional infirmity in

any provision of the Sentencing Reform Act to provide

——————

3 See United States v. O’Brien, 560 U. S. ___, ___, and n. 1 (2010)

(STEVENS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1–2, and n. 1) (discussing a

significant sentencing policy trend in 1970’s and 1980’s, involving a

shift to mandatory, determinate sentencing schemes based on judicial

factfinding by a preponderance standard).

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 7

STEVENS, J., dissenting

relief for the defendants in Booker, or to apply the Guide­

lines in a mandatory fashion in future cases—so long as

juries were allowed to decide the factual issues raised by

requests for enhanced sentences. See id., at 272–303

(STEVENS, J., dissenting in part). Notwithstanding the

fact that the Court could have retained the Guidelines’

mandatory prescriptive effect in a manner consonant with

the jury-trial right, the Court nevertheless adopted a

broad remedy that recast the Guidelines in their entirety.

That change did not respond to a determination that the

mandatory Guidelines regime itself violated the Sixth

Amendment. Neither my opinion for the Court with re­

spect to our constitutional holding, nor JUSTICE BREYER’s

remedial opinion, contained any such determination.

Instead, the Court’s decision to make the Guidelines dis­

cretionary rested entirely on the majority’s judgment that

Congress would have preferred that result to either an

increase in the jury’s role in making factual findings or a

decision invalidating the entire regime. Id., at 249. When

Congress was wrestling with the Sentencing Reform Act of

1984, it did not foresee Apprendi, Ring, and Blakely. The

Court made a policy-based prediction that, were Congress

to have had such foresight, it would not have elected—in

any respect—a mandatory sentencing regime.

The Court openly acknowledged this methodology:

“In essence, in what follows, we explain both (1) why

Congress would likely have preferred the total invali­

dation of the Act to an Act with the Court’s Sixth

Amendment requirement engrafted onto it, and (2)

why Congress would likely have preferred the excision

of some of the Act, namely the Act’s mandatory lan­

guage, to the invalidation of the entire Act. That is to

say, in light of today’s holding, we compare maintain­

ing the Act as written with jury factfinding added (the

dissenters’ proposed remedy) to the total invalidation

8 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

of the statute, and conclude that Congress would have

preferred the latter. We then compare our own rem­

edy to the total invalidation of the statute, and con­

clude that Congress would have preferred our rem­

edy.” 543 U. S., at 249.

Thus, rather than “maintaining the Act as written with

jury factfinding added,” ibid., the Court opted to alter the

Commission’s power in a more fundamental way: It did

away with a fixed, determinate sentencing regime based

on mandatory Guidelines. Henceforth the Commission

would guide and advise federal courts in the exercise of

their sentencing authority. But the Commission would

not bind.

The Court held as follows:

“We answer the question of remedy by finding the

provision of the federal sentencing statute that makes

the Guidelines mandatory, 18 U. S. C. §3553(b)(1)

(Supp. IV), incompatible with today’s constitutional

holding. We conclude that this provision must be sev­

ered and excised, as must one other statutory section,

§3742(e) (2000 ed. and Supp. IV), which depends upon

the Guidelines’ mandatory nature. So modified, the

federal sentencing statute, see Sentencing Reform Act

of 1984 (Sentencing Act), as amended, 18 U. S. C.

§3551 et seq., 28 U. S. C. §991 et seq., makes the

Guidelines effectively advisory. It requires a sentenc­

ing court to consider Guidelines ranges, see 18 U.S.C.

§3553(a)(4) (Supp. IV), but it permits the court to tai­

lor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as

well, see §3553(a).” Id., at 245–246.

The only fair way to read the Booker majority’s remedy

is that it eliminated the mandatory features of the Guide­

lines—all of them.4 It is true that the Court explicitly

——————

4 See also, e.g., Booker, 543 U. S., at 246 (opinion for the Court by

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 9

STEVENS, J., dissenting

severed only two specific statutory sections. But there

was not, at the time, even a whisper of a suggestion that

any other mandatory provision existed or that any should

be preserved.5

Were it not clear from the foregoing discussion of Booker

itself, our post-Booker decisions have repeatedly empha­

sized the completely advisory nature of the Guidelines.

See, e.g., Cunningham v. California, 549 U. S. 270, 286–

287 (2007) (“Under the system described in JUSTICE

BREYER’s opinion for the Court in Booker, judges would no

longer be tied to the sentencing range indicated in the

Guidelines. But they would be obliged to ‘take account of’

that range along with the sentencing goals Congress

enumerated in the [Sentencing Reform Act of 1984] at 18

U. S. C. §3553(a)”); Rita v. United States, 551 U. S. 338,

351 (2007) (“[T]he sentencing court does not enjoy the

benefit of a legal presumption that the Guidelines sen­

tence should apply”); Gall v. United States, 552 U. S. 38,

——————

BREYER, J.) (“The other approach, which we now adopt, would (through

severance and excision of two provisions) make the Guidelines system

advisory while maintaining a strong connection between the sentence

imposed and the offender’s real conduct—a connection important to the

increased uniformity of sentencing that Congress intended its Guide­

lines system to achieve” (emphasis added)); id., at 254 (“Congress would

have preferred no mandatory system to the system the dissenters

envisage”); id., at 264 (“Finally, the Act without its ‘mandatory’ provi­

sion and related language remains consistent with Congress’ initial and

basic sentencing intent. . . . The system remaining after excision, while

lacking the mandatory features that Congress enacted, retains other

features that help to further these objectives” (emphasis added)); ibid.

(“The district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must

consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing”

(emphasis added)).

5 It seems, however, that at least one additional provision of the Sen­

tencing Reform Act should have been excised, but was not, in order to

accomplish the Court’s remedy. Section §3742(g)(2), prescribes that the

Guidelines are to have binding effect upon a remand for a new sentence

in a direct appeal: “The court shall not impose a sentence outside the

applicable guidelines range . . . .”

10 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

46 (2007) (“As a result of our decision [in Booker], the

Guidelines are now advisory, and appellate review of

sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether

they are ‘reasonable’ ”); Kimbrough v. United States, 552

U. S. 85, 101 (2007) (“In sum, while the statute still re­

quires a court to give respectful consideration to the

Guidelines, Booker permits the court to tailor the sentence

in light of other statutory concerns as well” (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted)); Spears v. United

States, 555 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5)

(“[W]e now clarify that district courts are entitled to reject

and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Guidelines

based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines”).6

Our case law is quite clear: The Guidelines no longer have

mandatory and binding effect, and the sentencing court

may not presume them correct or reasonable when it

considers an individual sentencing decision.

In light of this history, the limited nature of the

§3582(c)(2) proceeding is beside the point. Nothing turns

——————

6 See also Spears, 555 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (“[D]istrict courts

are entitled to vary from the crack-cocaine guidelines in a mine-run

case where there are no ‘particular circumstances’ that would otherwise

justify a variance from the Guidelines’ sentencing range”); Kimbrough,

552 U. S., at 101 (“The Government acknowledges that the Guidelines

‘are now advisory’ and that, as a general matter, ‘courts may vary [from

Guidelines ranges] based solely on policy considerations, including

disagreements with the Guidelines’ ”); id., at 113–114 (SCALIA, J.,

concurring) (“[T]he district court is free to make its own reasonable

application of the §3553(a) factors, and to reject (after due considera­

tion) the advice of the Guidelines. If there is any thumb on the scales;

if the Guidelines must be followed even where the district court’s

application of the §3553(a) factors is entirely reasonable; then the

‘advisory’ Guidelines would, over a large expanse of their application,

entitle the defendant to a lesser sentence but for the presence of certain

additional facts found by judge rather than jury. This, as we said in

Booker, would violate the Sixth Amendment”); Gall, 552 U. S., at 50

(sentencing court “may not presume that the Guidelines range is

reasonable”).

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 11

STEVENS, J., dissenting

on whether the proceeding is best understood as a resen­

tencing or as a sentence modification procedure. Nor is it

relevant that Dillon has no right to be present at a pro­

ceeding under §3582(c)(2), ante, at 9–10, or that a sentence

reduction proceeding may not be “constitutionally com­

pelled,” ante, at 10–11. The Court’s general reliance on

Booker in this case, see ante, at 11–12, is odd because the

Booker Court explained its belief “that Congress would not

have authorized a mandatory system in some cases and a

nonmandatory system in others,” 543 U. S., at 266. Yet,

this is precisely the system the Court approves today.

Approaching this case as the Booker Court did, one must

ask whether it is likely that a fully informed Congress

would have created this kind of Commission: one endowed

with vast responsibilities for drafting advisory Guidelines

and policy statements, but also with the tiniest sliver of

lawmaking power to tie the hands of a district court’s

exercise of grace under §3582(c)(2). I think the answer is

obvious.

II

My understanding of the scope of the Booker remedy is

reinforced by an additional consideration: The Commis­

sion’s policy statement, to which the Court today allows

binding effect, may exceed the scope of the Commission’s

powers. No one disputes that Congress could have re­

jected the Court’s remedial holding in Booker if it so

wished. Instead, it is the Commission that has rejected

Booker’s application to §3582(c)(2), by purporting to give

mandatory force to its own policy statement. That action

presses the bounds of the authority Congress validly gave

the Commission in 1984, for it is not clear that Congress

has authorized the Commission to create this type of

policy statement or to circumvent a decision such as

Booker on its own accord.

We have been quite permissive of congressional delega­

12 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

tions in our separation-of-powers jurisprudence. “So long

as Congress ‘shall lay down by legislative act an intelligi­

ble principle to which the person or body authorized to

[exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform,

such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of

legislative power.’ ” Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 372 (quoting J.

W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394,

409 (1928)). Few legislative actions have been found to

offend this principle. 488 U. S., at 373.

More than 20 years ago, the Court upheld the constitu­

tionality of the Commission’s work from just such an

attack in Mistretta. We took sanctuary then in the fact

that, in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act and creating

the Commission, Congress had “se[t] forth more than

merely an ‘intelligible principle’ or minimal standard” for

the exercise of the Commission’s discretion, and had “ ‘ex­

plain[ed] what the Commission should do and how it

should do it, and se[t] out specific directives to govern

particular situations.’ ” Id., at 379. To this end, Congress

gave the Commission clear “goals,” id., at 374; specified

the “ ‘purposes of sentencing,’ ” ibid.; “prescribed the spe­

cific tool”—“the guidelines system”—the Commission was

to use in its work, ibid.; set limits on the appropriate

Guidelines ranges the Commission was to promulgate, id.,

at 375; and set forth “seven factors” and “11 factors,”

respectively, to assist the Commission with “its formula­

tion of offense categories” and its establishment of “catego­

ries of defendants” for sentencing purposes, id., at 375–

376.

We explained that “although Congress granted the

Commission substantial discretion in formulating guide­

lines, in actuality it legislated a full hierarchy of punish­

ment—from near maximum imprisonment, to substantial

imprisonment, to some imprisonment, to alternatives—

and stipulated the most important offense and offender

characteristics to place defendants within these catego­

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 13

STEVENS, J., dissenting

ries.” Id., at 377. There was, accordingly, no “concern of

encroachment and aggrandizement that has animated our

separation-of-powers jurisprudence and aroused our vigi­

lance against the ‘hydraulic pressure inherent within each

of the separate Branches to exceed the outer limits of its

power.’ ” Id., at 382 (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S.

919, 951 (1983)).

JUSTICE SCALIA disagreed. He argued forcefully that

Congress’ creation of the Commission was itself “a pure

delegation of legislative power” and therefore an abuse of

separation of powers. 488 U. S., at 420 (dissenting opin­

ion). “Congress’ commitment of such broad policy respon­

sibility to any institution,” in JUSTICE SCALIA’s view,

violated a core principle of our governing system: that

“basic policy decisions governing society are to be made by

the Legislature.” Id., at 415.

Although we acknowledged in Mistretta that Congress

had permissibly granted substantial powers to the Com­

mission to set law and policy on sentencing generally, we

had no occasion to consider whether it had spoken with

sufficient clarity respecting the Commission’s authority to

prescribe sentence reductions. That question has now

reared its head, and in my view it raises separation-of­

powers concerns significantly more difficult than those

presented in Mistretta.

First, I am doubtful that Congress authorized the type

of “policy statement” we find in USSG §1B1.10. Congress

instructed the Commission to promulgate “general policy

statements regarding application of the guidelines or any

other aspect of sentencing or sentence implementation

that in the view of the Commission would further the

purposes set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18 . . .

including the appropriate use of,” inter alia, various “sen­

tence modification provisions.” 28 U. S. C. §994(a)(2). As

envisioned by the Sentencing Reform Act, the role of policy

statements was merely to inform the judge’s exercise of

14 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

discretion within an otherwise mandatory Guidelines

regime. See S. Rep. No. 98–225, p. 167 (1983) (explaining

that the “sentencing judge is required to take the policy

statements into account in deciding what sentence to

impose,” but that departure from a policy statement is not

itself grounds for appeal); see also id., at 166 (identifying

potential use of policy statement to “offe[r] recommenda­

tions as to how” to “trea[t]” “in the future” “existing dis­

parities which are not adequately cured by the guide­

lines”). Congress reserved binding effect for the

Commission’s “guidelines,” which the Commission was to

promulgate pursuant to a distinct statutory provision,

§994(a)(1). The Sentencing Reform Act thus drew a basic

distinction: Guidelines would bind; policy statements

would advise.

Given that distinction, it is significant that Congress

elected to use the Commission’s policy-statement power to

set limitations on the sentencing modification procedures,

rather than invoking the Commission’s Guidelines power.

The Commission is now trying to use a policy statement to

have the mandatory effect of a guideline—inverting the

Sentencing Reform Act’s original design. I find no provi­

sion within §994(a)(2) that would authorize the Commis­

sion, via a policy statement, to create a binding Guidelines

regime. With respect to the type of action the Commission

has taken, there is certainly no provision that even ap­

proximates the detailed prescriptions on the Commission’s

power we considered in Mistretta.

Moreover, not only does nothing in §994(a)(2) appear to

authorize this type of policy statement, but there is also

nothing that appears to authorize the Commission, by its

own fiat, to limit the effect of our decision in Booker.

How to respond to Booker, and whether to retain man­

datory Guidelines, was a decision for Congress—and

Congress alone. Booker expressly left “[t]he ball” “in

Congress’ court,” explaining that “[t]he National Legisla­

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 15

STEVENS, J., dissenting

ture is equipped to devise and install, long term, the sen­

tencing system, compatible with the Constitution, that

Congress judges best for the federal system of justice.”

543 U. S., at 265; see also supra, at 3–4. That Congress

has declined to disturb Booker in the five years since its

issuance demonstrates not only that JUSTICE BREYER is

more clairvoyant than I am, but also that Congress has

acquiesced to a discretionary Guidelines regime. Con­

gress’ silence has deprived the Commission of any “intelli­

gible principle[s],” J. W. Hampton, 276 U. S., at 409, by

which to steer its consideration of the appropriate re­

sponse to Booker. And without such guidance, I fear that,

in promulgating USSG §1B1.10, the Commission may

have made the type of “basic policy decisio[n]” that

JUSTICE SCALIA reminded us is the province of the Legis­

lature, Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 415 (dissenting opinion).

Prior to the Commission’s 2008 overhaul of its policy

statement in §1B1.10—and even under the applicable

policy statement in effect when the Court decided

Booker—nothing in the Guidelines, see supra, at 3–4, and

n. 2, as understood in light of Booker, would have pre­

cluded Dillon from obtaining the type of discretionary

sentence reduction he now seeks (assuming he was so

eligible). Standing in Dillon’s way presently are two pro­

visions of §1B1.10, revised contemporaneously with the

Commission’s decision to make its amendments to the

crack cocaine offense Guidelines retroactive.

There can be no question that the purpose of the Com­

mission’s amendments to its policy statement in §1B1.10

was to circumvent the Booker remedy. See Brief for Fed­

eral Public and Community Defenders et al. as Amici

Curiae 3–9 (describing history of promulgation of current

version of §1B1.10). To this end, the Commission dis­

claimed that proceedings under §3582(c)(2) “constitute a

full resentencing of the defendant.” USSG §1B1.10(a)(3).

And it advised that “the court shall not reduce the defen­

16 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

dant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2)

and this policy statement to a term that is less than the

minimum of the amended guideline range determined”

under the new range. §1B1.10(b)(2)(A). In other words,

the Commission told federal courts that its Guidelines, at

least in §3582(c)(2) proceedings, remain mandatory and

binding.

Had the Commission taken it upon itself, by issuance of

a general policy statement, to make its Guidelines manda­

tory but subject to jury findings in all cases, we would

either strike down such an act on separation-of-powers

grounds or apply the same remedy we did in Booker to

render the statement advisory. It makes little difference,

in my view, that the Commission has only rejected the

Booker remedy in this single procedure. The encroach­

ment is the same, if only more subtle. Any legislative

response to Booker was a decision for Congress to make—

not the Commission.

III

Separate from the arguments noted above, the Court’s

decision today may reflect a concern that a contrary hold­

ing would discourage the Commission from issuing retro­

active amendments to the Guidelines, owing to a fear of

burdening the district courts. In what might be described

as a subtle threat, the Commission has highlighted this

point in its amicus brief supporting the Government. The

brief explains that holding for Dillon would introduce

uncertainty into the Commission’s “assessments about the

effects of retroactivity decisions,” making these decisions

“very difficult” and “weigh[ing] against making Guideline

amendments retroactive in the future.” Brief for United

States Sentencing Commission as Amicus Curiae 21.7

——————

7 The Government’s argument along these lines is less subtle: “To

forbid the Sentencing Commission from limiting the scope of Section

3582(c)(2) sentence reduction proceedings to the scope of the amend­

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 17

STEVENS, J., dissenting

Even if that explanation were accurate, it should not

influence our assessment of the legal question before us.

The Commission has a statutory obligation to review and

amend Guidelines ranges. 28 U. S. C. §994(o). And Con­

gress has commanded that the Commission “shall specify

in what circumstances” an amendment is retroactive,

indicating that most, if not all, substantial amendments

are to receive some type of retroactive effect. §994(u); see

also S. Rep. No. 98–225, at 180 (“It should be noted that

the Committee does not expect that the Commission will

recommend adjusting existing sentences under

[§3582(c)(2)] when guidelines are simply refined in a way

that might cause isolated instances of existing sentences

falling above the old guidelines or when there is only a

minor downward adjustment in the guidelines”). In other

words, while Congress has left the retroactivity decision to

the Commission’s discretion, it has done so with the pre­

sumption that some form of retroactive relief is appropri­

ate when a Guidelines amendment is nontrivial.8 I cannot

——————

ments themselves would inevitably discourage the Sentencing Commis­

sion from ever authorizing sentence reductions.” Brief for United

States 37.

8 As the Court notes, I do agree that §994(u) authorizes the Commis­

sion to determine the retroactive effect of sentence reductions. Ante, at

13. I understand §994(u) as directing the Commission to prescribe the

retroactive effect, if any, of its Guidelines amendments. The power to

make retroactivity determinations is meaningfully different, however,

from the other power the Court claims for the Commission. In granting

the former power, Congress has instructed the Commission to perform

a gate keeping function by determining which individuals are eligible

for relief pursuant to §3582(c)(2). By contrast, the other power the

Court claims for the Commission today is the type of mandatory sen­

tencing authority at issue in Booker. Contrary to the Court’s conclu­

sion, the Commission after Booker does not have the power to bind the

district court in setting a particular sentence.

I also cannot accept the Court’s broad understanding of the power

the Commission derives from §994(u), see ante, at 8, because it suffers

from the same delegation concerns I discussed above, see supra, 11–16.

18 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

accept that the Commission would ignore its obligations,

and would withhold retroactive application of a Guidelines

reduction, simply because a judge would have discretion

to enter a below-Guidelines sentence in a §3582(c)(2)

proceeding.

Undoubtedly, discretionary application of the Guidelines

in §3582(c)(2) proceedings would impose a greater burden

on the district courts. Such a process would require case­

specific evaluations rather than the rote, two-level reduc­

tions the Commission envisioned when it made Amend­

ment 706 retroactive. But it is important to remember

that §3582(c)(2) already requires the district court to

consider the §3553(a) factors when it determines whether

to grant a reduction, as well as the extent of the reduction.

And any additional consideration of evidence proffered to

justify a downward departure need not create a great deal

of work. Indeed, it need not create any particular adver­

sarial process at all: The Commission could simply advise

the district courts to review paper submissions, including

the original presentence report and objections, as well as

any new submissions. By now, courts are intimately

familiar with our post-Booker sentencing regime and the

discretionary application of the §3553(a) factors.

The facts of Dillon’s case show why any additional bur­

den on the courts caused by applying Booker’s remedial

holding likely pales in comparison to the benefit of achiev­

ing more tailored, proportionate sentences for those indi­

viduals currently serving terms of imprisonment that

exceed what is “necessary” to meet the goals of our sen­

tencing system, §3553(a). Dillon was 23 years old when he

was sentenced to nearly 27 years’ imprisonment for his

——————

I do not think the Commission’s authority encompasses the ability to

promulgate binding Guidelines via policy statements. And this matter

is separate from its power to promulgate Guidelines—a power unaf­

fected by our decision in Booker.

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 19

STEVENS, J., dissenting

drug crimes. His attorney urged the District Court to

enter a below-Guidelines sentence because of, inter alia,

the gross disparity between sentences for crack and pow­

der cocaine offenses. App. 8–9. It would take another 14

years for this Court to agree, finally, in Kimbrough, 552

U. S. 85, that sentencing courts could consider this unjust

disparity.

But the District Court, constrained by the then­

mandatory Guidelines, increased Dillon’s sentence based

on judge-found facts by more than 10 years over the sen­

tence authorized by the jury’s verdict. See Brief for Peti­

tioner 2, and n. 2. The court could only lament: “I person­

ally don’t believe that you should be serving 322 months.

But I feel I am bound by those Guidelines and I don’t feel

there is any grounds for . . . depart[ing] from those Guide­

lines.” App. 12–13. The court acknowledged: “I don’t say

to you that these penalties are fair. I don’t think they are

fair.” Id., at 13. The court also implored Dillon to make

something of the hand he had dealt himself: “I hope that

while you are in prison . . . that you will take some time to

consider the direction that your life will take when you do

return to society. . . . It is only through people like you if

you spread the word that other young men of your age will

hesitate to get involved in [dealing drugs].” Ibid.

Dillon has done just that. He has participated in out­

reach efforts in the communities in which he has been

imprisoned, doing extensive work with adolescents to steer

them away from a life of drugs and crime. Brief for Peti­

tioner 5–6. Working with two universities, he has facili­

tated the initiation of an African-American Studies pro­

gram at Hunters Point Family, a Bay Area organization

devoted to assisting at-risk youth. He has also played a

large role in initiating a similar program at his prison

facility. Berkeley’s Prison Outreach Coordinator stated to

the District Court that “without [Dillon’s] insight and

advice, our project would not have succeeded and grown

20 DILLON v. UNITED STATES

STEVENS, J., dissenting

the way it has.” Id., at 6 (internal quotation marks omit­

ted). Dillon has also prepared himself for a successful life

once he returns to society. He has obtained his general

equivalency diploma (GED), taken vocational classes in

property management, and has job prospects awaiting him

upon release. Id., at 6–7.

The Government concedes that Dillon has undertaken

“significant institutional rehabilitation and education.”

Brief for United States 11. The Court of Appeals acknowl­

edged that “[i]f Booker did apply in proceedings pursuant

to §3582, Dillon would likely be an ideal candidate for a

non-Guidelines sentence.” 572 F. 3d 146, 147 (CA3 2009).

And yet, now, the Government will continue to spend more

than $25,000 a year to keep Dillon behind bars until his

release date.9

Given the circumstances of his case, I can scarcely think

of a greater waste of this Nation’s precious resources. Cf.

Barber v. Thomas, ante, at ___ (2010) (slip op., at 1)

(KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (“And if the only way to call

attention to the human implications of this case is to

speak in terms of economics, then it should be noted that

the Court’s interpretation comes at a cost to the taxpayers

of untold millions of dollars”). Dillon’s continued impris­

onment is a truly sad example of what I have come to view

as an exceptionally, and often mindlessly, harsh federal

punishment scheme.

IV

Neither the interests of justice nor common sense lends

any support to the decision to preserve the single sliver of

the Commission’s lawmaking power that the Court resur­

——————

9 See Hanlon, Hecker, & Gopstein, Expanding the Zones: A Modest

Proposal to Increase the Use of Alternatives to Incarceration in Federal

Sentencing, 24 ABA Criminal Justice, No. 4, pp. 26, 28 (Winter 2010)

(“In fiscal year 2008, it cost $25,894.50 to incarcerate an offender in a

federal Bureau of Prisons facility for 12 months”).

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 21

STEVENS, J., dissenting

rects today. I had thought Booker dismantled the manda­

tory Guidelines regime. The Court ought to finish the job.

I respectfully dissent.