## Facts

- Percy Dillon was convicted in federal court in 1993 of drug and firearm offenses involving crack and powder cocaine.
- The Sentencing Guidelines produced a base offense level of 38 and an imprisonment range of 262–327 months for the drug counts; the court imposed 262 months.
- In 2007, the Sentencing Commission lowered crack offense levels (Amendment 706) and later made the change retroactive (Amendment 713).
- Dillon moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence, seeking both the two-level reduction and a further reduction below the amended range based on United States v. Booker.
- The district court reduced the sentence to the bottom of the amended range but denied any further reduction, treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 as binding and declining to revisit unrelated guideline determinations.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Booker makes the amended guideline range advisory in a § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction proceeding, permitting a reduction below the amended range despite U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.
2. Whether a district court may correct guideline errors unrelated to the retroactive amendment (such as criminal history calculations) in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in a 7–1 decision.
- Booker’s remedial holding does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 is binding in that context.
- A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence, not a plenary resentencing.
- Except as permitted by § 1B1.10 (e.g., mirroring an original below-range sentence), courts may not reduce a sentence below the minimum of the amended guideline range.
- Courts lack authority in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings to revisit sentencing issues unaffected by the retroactive amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Section 3582(c)(2) creates a narrow exception to finality, allowing sentence reductions only when a guideline range has been lowered retroactively and only if the reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements.
- Courts apply a two-step approach: (1) determine eligibility and the permitted extent of any reduction under § 1B1.10; (2) consider applicable § 3553(a) factors to decide whether the authorized reduction should be granted in whole or in part.
- Booker’s Sixth Amendment and advisory-Guidelines framework for original sentencings does not transform § 3582(c)(2) modifications into discretionary resentencings.
- Guideline determinations unrelated to the retroactive amendment remain outside the scope of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Court held that sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) are constrained by the Sentencing Commission’s binding policy statement in § 1B1.10, do not permit Booker-style variances below the amended guideline range, and do not allow reopening unrelated sentencing determinations.


Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010)