Drug sentence reductions
Koons v. United States
In brief
The defendants lost their bid for another sentence cut, and the Supreme Court left the Eighth Circuit's ruling in place.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 4, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- Timothy Koons and four other drug defendants sought further sentence cuts after sentencing guidelines were lowered; their sentences had already been reduced below required minimums because they helped the government.
- Who it affects
- The ruling leaves Koons and the four other defendants unable to get another cut based on Amendment 782.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.

What it's about
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the Eighth Circuit that they could not get another reduction because their sentences were based on the required minimums and their assistance, not the guideline ranges.
Their original guideline ranges were below the minimum sentences required by law. After they helped the government, a judge reduced their sentences below those minimums.
Amendment 782 lowered guideline levels for most drug quantities, prompting the defendants to seek another sentence reduction.
Question presented
1. Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in holding, contrary to the opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, that defendants whose initial advisory guideline sentencing range was below a statutory mandatory minimum and who were subsequently sentenced below that minimum after the district court granted a government motion for reduction in sentence for substantial assistance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), are not eligible for further reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and retroactive sentencing guideline Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense levels assigned to most drug quantities? 2. Whether Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (plurality opinion) supports the holding that there is a substantive limitation on the term "based on" in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) that prohibits defendants whose initial advisory guideline range was below a statutory mandatory minimum, and who were subsequently sentenced below that minimum after the district court granted a government motion for reduction in sentence for substantial assistance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), from being eligible for further reduction in sentence due to retroactive sentencing guideline Amendment 782?
What the Court decided
Holding
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished the case, and the Eighth Circuit's ruling remains in place for these defendants.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.