Marty Smith was convicted in 2006 of participating in a crack cocaine conspiracy involving more than 50 grams. He had a prior felony drug conviction and so, based on the amount of crack cocaine involved, was 20 years. The United States Sentencing Guidelines, at the time, prescribed a sentencing range of 168-210 months, which, of course, was trumped by the statutory mandatory minimum. Smith received a 20 year sentence.
The Fair Sentencing Act came in 2010 and increased the volume threshold of the crime from 50 to 280 grams, a change that, if it had been retroactive, would have reduced the statutory mandatory minimum applicable to Smith from 20 to 10 years. But it wasn't retroactive and so it goes.
The First Step Act of 2018 did make the beneficial change in the federal drug law applicable to Smith. He moved for a reduction of his sentence. The district court found he was eligible for a reduction but, after concluding that the guideline range applicable to Smith was only 77 - 96 months, denied it, finding that the 20 years imposed originally remained appropriate.
The Sixth Circuit, in a per curiam clerk's order, ruled that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to reduce Smith's sentence. First, the Sixth Circuit observed that the larger is the variance of a sentence from the guidelines range, the more compelling basis is the necessary basis. Second, the variance upward was a "major one," since it was double the mandatory minimum set by Congress and 2 1/2 times the upper end of the guidelines calculation sans the statutory minimum. Third, that Congress rather than the Sentencing Commission reduced the mandatory minimum applicable to Smith made the standard for justifying a major upward variance even more demanding. Fourth, the Sixth Circuit firmly rejected the district court's reference to the societal harm caused by the criminal activities and statistical evidence indicating possibility of recidivism as grounds sufficient to justify the upward variance, noting that these factors were already included in the guideline calculation. The Sixth Circuit expressed confidence that the district court could fashion an appropriate sentence of less than 20 years on remand.
