08-3611 U.S. v. Neal

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Crack cocaine

Where the sentencing judge denied an 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion, citing facts not in the record, the sentence must be vacated.

"We do not know whether anything untoward has occurred. But we also do not know where the judge's information came from or whether it is correct. Neal is entitled to an opportunity to contest propositions that affect how long he must spend in prison. He says that the due process clause entitles him to a hearing, but courts do not start with the Constitution. See, e.g., New York Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 582-83 (1979); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2006). Unless the procedures established by statutes, rules, and the common law are challenged as insufficient, there is neither need nor justification for constitutional decisionmaking. Certainly there's no need for it here. The entitlement to a hearing to resolve material disputes of fact comes from §6A1.3 and ordinary procedural norms. Section 3582(c)(2) itself refers the court to 'applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission', and §6A1.3 fits that bill, because it applies to any 'sentencing determination'." Vacated and Remanded.

08-3611 U.S. v. Neal

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Murphy, J., Easterbrook, J.

Full Text