Note
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Three Federal Criminal Cases (December 2017)
The Supreme Court took three criminal cases in December 2017, and its 2018 rulings decided who can get guideline-based sentence reductions.
Written by Brandon Sample · Updated · Filed under Appeals
Update (October 2026): All three cases were decided in 2018. Koons held that people sentenced below a mandatory minimum for cooperating cannot get a reduction when a guideline range is later lowered. Koons v. United States, 584 U.S. 700 (2018). Hughes held that people with "C" plea deals can generally get those reductions. Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. 675 (2018). Sanchez-Gomez held the restraint challenge was moot and threw out the Ninth Circuit's ruling. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U.S. 381 (2018).
On Friday, December 8, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear three new criminal cases. Two of them, Koons and Hughes, decided who can get a lower sentence when the Sentencing Commission retroactively reduces a guideline range. The third, Sanchez-Gomez, involved shackling defendants in court.
In legal terms, the Court "granted certiorari." A writ of certiorari is an order the Supreme Court issues, at its discretion, when it agrees to review a lower court's decision. At least four Justices must vote to hear a case.
The three cases were:
- Koons v. United States, No. 17-5716
- Hughes v. United States, No. 17-155
- United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312
Koons v. United States
The question in Koons was:
Whether a defendant who is subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, but who substantially assisted the government and received a sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(e), is eligible for a further sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), when the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowers the advisory sentencing guidelines range that would have applied in the absence of the statutory mandatory minimum.
In plain terms: if you got less than the mandatory minimum because you helped the government, can you get even less when the drug guidelines are lowered? Amendment 782, known as "drugs minus 2," lowered most drug guideline ranges. The Commission's policy statement in USSG §1B1.10(c) said courts could reduce sentences for people in this situation.
The Eighth Circuit held these defendants were sentenced based on the government's cooperation motion, not "based on" the guidelines, so they could not get relief. The Fourth Circuit disagreed in United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court took the case to settle that split. When the Court granted review, a decision was expected by June 2018.
The Supreme Court sided with the government. See the update above.
The certiorari petition in Koons and the government's response:
Government's response to Koons petition
Hughes v. United States
The question in Hughes (No. 17-155) was:
Whether, as a four-justice plurality in Freeman v. United States concluded, a defendant who enters into a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is generally eligible for a sentence reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range.
A Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea, often called a "C" plea, is a deal where you and the government agree on a specific sentence or range, and the judge is bound by it if the judge accepts the deal. At the time, the federal circuits were split 10-2 on this issue. In the 1st through 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits, people with C pleas could not get Amendment 782 relief unless the deal itself based the agreed sentence on the guidelines. Most C pleas did not do that.
When the Court took the case, the original article noted it could be a very significant decision for people with C pleas if the Court held that a deal's failure to include guideline calculations does not bar § 3582 relief. A decision was expected by June 2018.
The Supreme Court ruled for the defendant, making many people with C pleas eligible. See the update above.
Copies of the certiorari petition, reply, and response:
Hughes certiorari petition and reply
Government response to Hughes certiorari petition.
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez
The question in Sanchez-Gomez (No. 17-312) was:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in asserting authority to review respondents' interlocutory challenge to pretrial physical restraints and in ruling on that challenge notwithstanding its recognition that respondents' individual claims were moot.
The Ninth Circuit had struck down the District of Arizona's practice of shackling pretrial defendants during court hearings. The question was whether it should have ruled at all, since the defendants' own cases were over (moot) by the time of the appeal. A decision was also expected by June 2018.
The Supreme Court held the case was moot and vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision. See the update above.
The petition, response, and reply:
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez petition for certiorari
Response to petition for certiorari
Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.