United States v. Cass Bethea

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 13, 2020 · No. 19-1753

Summary

The Sixth Circuit held that a defendant serving a revocation sentence for violating supervised release is eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act because his original crack cocaine conviction is a "covered offense." However, the district court's alternative ruling denying a reduction in its discretion was unchallenged on appeal and therefore affirmed. The case clarifies that eligibility under the First Step Act extends to defendants in custody for supervised release violations, but a discretionary denial not appealed will stand.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Jane B. Stranch; John K. Bush; Joan L. Larsen
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
March 13, 2020
Docket number
19-1753
Procedural posture
Appeal from the district court's order denying a motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018.
Standard of review
De novo (for the legal determination of eligibility under the First Step Act)
Precedential value
Unpublished
Parties
Cass Lavell Bethea v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewpreservation of error

Practice areas

Criminal Law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in holding that Bethea is ineligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act because he is serving a revocation sentence, not the original sentence for his crack cocaine conviction.

Holdings

  1. A defendant serving a revocation sentence is eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act because the original sentence for the covered offense is the basis for eligibility.
  2. The district court's alternative discretionary decision to deny the sentence reduction is not reviewed because Bethea forfeited any challenge to it by not raising it in his appellate brief.

Key quotations

The First Step Act “permits a court that sentenced a defendant for an offense for which ‘the statutory penalties . . . were modified’ by the Fair Sentencing Act to ‘impose a reduced sentence as if’ the Fair Sentencing Act were ‘in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.’” (page 1)
[A]n appellant abandons all issues not raised and argued in its initial brief on appeal. (page 3)

Factual background

Bethea was originally convicted in 2006 for possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of crack cocaine. He served his 140-month prison sentence and began a five-year term of supervised release. He violated the terms of supervised release, leading to modification and later to a revocation sentence of 30 months imprisonment after a new state drug conviction. He is currently serving that revocation sentence.

Procedural history

In 2006, Bethea was sentenced to 140 months for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He completed his prison term and began supervised release. He violated terms, the district court modified release conditions, and later he was arrested on state drug charges. After a state court sentence, he pleaded guilty to violating supervised release and was sentenced to 30 months consecutive to the state sentence. He filed a motion under the First Step Act to reduce his revocation sentence; the district court denied the motion, holding Bethea ineligible and alternatively declining to exercise discretion. Bethea appealed only the eligibility ruling.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…