Sentence modification; 18 USC § 3582(c)(2); Sentencing Commission’s retroactive amendment to how criminal-history points are calculated (Amendment 821); Whether defendant’s sentence was based on her Guidelines range; Statutory mandatory minimums; Whether Amendment 821 lowered her range; USSG § 1B1.10(c); Effect of a prior Fed R Crim P 35(b) reduction due to substantial assistance; § 1B1.10 cmt n 4(B); Distinguishing Koons v United States; Whether § 1B1.10(c) should be invalidated based on Koons

The court held that defendant-Hilton met at least the initial requirement for a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2) because her sentence was based on her Guidelines range and that range was subsequently lowered by Amendment 821. Thus, it vacated the district court’s order denying her initial motion for a reduced sentence under the statute, and remanded. She pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of meth and of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Criminal history points produced “a criminal-history category of IV. Her offense level was 21, so the initial Guidelines range was 57 to 71 months.” But both convictions carried 60-month mandatory minimums. The district court sentenced her to 120 months. The government later moved to reduce her sentence under Rule 35(b) due to her substantial assistance in another case. It was reduced to 100 months. After Amendment 821 was issued, she moved for a further reduction. The district court ruled that relief was unavailable per § 3582(c)(2) because her original sentence was based on the statutory minimums, not a Guidelines range. On appeal, the court noted the district court properly calculated the 120 to 131-month Guidelines range for her original sentence and then sentenced her within it. As to her current sentence, the statements of the government and the district court related to the Rule 35(b) reduction showed that both understood the starting point for it “to be Hilton’s original Guidelines range. And when a ‘judge uses the sentencing range as the beginning point to explain the decision to deviate from it,’ § 3582(c)(2)’s ‘based on’ requirement is satisfied.” As to whether Amendment 821 “lowered” her Guidelines range, under § 1B1.10(c), “when a defendant has previously received a Rule 35(b) reduction, any mandatory minimums fall out of the picture when the sentencing range is recalculated.” This meant that “Hilton’s new, post-amendment range” was 106 to 117 months. The court rejected the government’s argument that her “sentence was based on her statutory mandatory minimums and Rule 35(b) motion, not a Guidelines” range, and its reliance on Koons, which was “materially distinguishable[.]” It also declined the “invitation to be the first circuit to invalidate § 1B1.10(c) on Koons grounds.”