Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15694/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15694-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacques K. Pierre
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15694

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20365-CMA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JACQUES K. PIERRE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 8, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 1 of 8
2

In 2011 a jury found Jacques K. Pierre guilty of several drug offenses. His

sentencing guidelines range was 292- to 365-months imprisonment, which was 

calculated from a base offense level of 36. The district court departed downward 

because of Pierre’s advanced age and sentenced him to only 180-months 

imprisonment. In 2014 the United States Sentencing Commission amended the 

Sentencing Guidelines in a way that would have given Pierre a base offense level 

of 34 instead of 36. Pierre moved to reduce his sentence based on that amendment. 

The district court denied the motion because Pierre’s original sentence was already 

below the amended guideline range. We affirm.

I

A court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment if a guidelines 

amendment lowered the sentencing range applicable to him after he was sentenced. 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d). 

Amendment 782 retroactively lowered the base offense level for many drug 

offenses by revising the drug quantity tables. USSG app. C, amend. 782. The

relevant quantity table when Pierre was originally sentenced gave him a base 

offense level of 36 because he was responsible for more than 50 but less than 150 

kilograms of cocaine. The revised table would now give a level of 34 for that same 

quantity range. Compare USSG § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2011), with USSG § 2D1.1(c)(3)

(2014). That, in turn, would lower Pierre’s sentencing range from 292–365 months 

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 2 of 8
3

to 235–293 months, which would seem to permit the district court to reduce his 

sentence. See § 1B1.10(a), (d).

But the guidelines do not allow this for Pierre. Section 1B1.10, which

governs sentence reductions, contains a caveat. It prohibits a court from 

“reduc[ing] the defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . to a term that is less than the 

minimum of the amended guideline range . . . .” § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (emphasis 

added). This caveat prevented the district court from reducing Pierre’s sentence,

because his original term of 180 months is already “less than the minimum of [his]

amended guideline range,” i.e., 235 months. If Pierre’s reduced sentence can result 

in a term of no less than 235 months, see id., then his original 180-month sentence 

left no room for a reduction.

If is true that this caveat itself contains a caveat. It applies “[e]xcept as 

provided in subdivision (B).” Id. That is to say, a court may reduce a sentence “to 

a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range” if 

subdivision (B) is satisfied. Subdivision (B) permits a court to reduce a 

defendant’s sentence, even to a term below the amended guideline range, if the 

defendant was originally given a below-guidelines sentence for giving substantial 

assistance to the government. Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (“If the term of imprisonment 

imposed was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range 

applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government 

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 3 of 8
4

motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, a reduction 

comparably less than the amended guideline range . . . may be appropriate.” 

(emphasis added)); see also United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1207 (11th 

Cir. 2012) (“[A] district court may lower a defendant’s sentence below the 

amended guidelines range only if the original sentence was below the original 

guidelines range because the defendant provided substantial assistance to the 

government.”). Alas, this caveat-to-the-caveat does not help Pierre. While he was 

originally given a below-guideline sentence, the departure was based on his age, 

not on substantial assistance.

Pierre offers a rejoinder. He points out that subdivision (B) was itself 

recently amended, see USSG app. C, amend. 759, and in its previous iteration it 

would have permitted a reduction in his sentence. The old version of subdivision

(B) broadly permitted reductions below the amended guideline range if the 

defendant was originally given a below-guidelines sentence. It did not limit that 

permission (as it now does) only to defendants who originally earned belowguideline sentences for giving substantial assistance. Below-guideline sentences of 

all kinds were eligible for reductions below the amended guideline range. See

USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (2010) (“If the original term of imprisonment imposed 

was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable 

to the defendant at the time of sentencing, a reduction comparably less than the 

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 4 of 8
5

amended guideline range . . . may be appropriate.”); see also Glover, 686 F.3d at 

1207 (under the old version of subdivision (B), a court could “lower a defendant’s 

prison sentence below the amended guidelines range if the original sentence was, 

for any reason, below the original guidelines range.” (emphasis added)).

The problem with this argument is that the old version of subdivision (B) is 

just that: an old version that courts can no longer apply when considering sentence 

reductions. Courts “shall use the version of [§ 1B1.10] that is in effect on the date 

on which the court reduces the defendant’s term of imprisonment.” § 1B1.10 cmt. 

n.8 (2014). The current version of subdivision (B) is the one courts must apply, 

and it prohibits reducing a sentence below the amended guideline range except 

when the defendant was originally given a below-guideline sentence for substantial 

assistance. That excludes Pierre.

II

Nevertheless, Pierre makes five separate arguments about why the old, 

favorable version of subdivision (B) should have applied to his resentencing, 

despite the contrary instruction in the guidelines commentary, see id.

First, he argues that applying the new version of subdivision (B) to his 

conduct violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 & § 10, 

cl. 1, because his conduct occurred before the new version went into effect. 

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 5 of 8
6

Second, he says the amendment to subdivision (B) is invalid because it exceeds the 

Sentencing Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994.

We have already rejected these precise arguments, and our precedent binds 

us. United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258–59 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[T]here is 

no ex post facto problem [with the amendment to subdivision (B)].”); id. at 1260 

(“The Commission did not exceed its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994 

when it amended § 1B1.10(b)(2) to limit, as it did, a court’s discretion to lower a

sentence below the amended guidelines range.”).

Third, Pierre contends that our case law requires all original sentencing 

determinations to remain the same at resentencing. If all original determinations 

must remain the same, then it follows, he insists, that he should have been

resentenced below the amended guideline range to the same extent that his original 

sentence was below the original guideline range. It is true that sentence reductions

are not de novo resentencings, and all original sentencing determinations remain 

unchanged with the sole exception of the amended guideline range. United States 

v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). But in Colon we explained that the 

current version of subdivision (B) does not override any earlier sentencing 

decisions and only limits the court’s discretion to make new decisions. See 707 

F.3d at 1260. The cases Pierre cites to the contrary were decided under the old 

version of subdivision (B), and therefore do not apply today.

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 6 of 8
7

Fourth, Pierre argues that under the law of the case doctrine, the court 

should have applied the same variance and resentenced him below the amended 

guideline range. But the law of the case doctrine did not apply because controlling 

authority foreclosed the district court from considering Pierre’s original departure 

for resentencing. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1561 (11th 

Cir. 1997) (explaining that under the law of the case doctrine, a legal decision 

“establishes the ‘law of the case’ and must be followed in all subsequent 

proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal in the appellate 

court, unless . . . controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the 

law applicable to such issues” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)); see also

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline 

range . . . .”).

Fifth, Pierre asserts that the Double Jeopardy Clause, U.S. Const. amend. V, 

cl. 2, has the same effect as the law-of-the-case doctrine: it requires the district 

court to resentence him below the amended guideline range. Pierre raises this

argument for the first time on appeal, so we review it only for plain error. United 

States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

1

 There was 

 1 To show plain error, a defendant must show that “there is: (1) error, (2) that is plain, and 

(3) that affects substantial rights.” Moreno, 421 F.3d at 1220 (quotation omitted). If all three 

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 7 of 8
8

no plain error because no binding decision has ever held that the Double Jeopardy 

Clause requires a resentencing court to reduce a sentence below the amended 

guideline range. See United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th 

Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“[T]here can be no plain error where there is no precedent 

from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving [the issue].”).

AFFIRMED.

 

conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to afford relief if the error seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

USCA11 Case: 14-15694 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 8 of 8