Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03050/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Dion Clay
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3050

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Anthony Dion Clay, *

*

 Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 15, 2008

Filed: May 7, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Anthony Dion Clay pled guilty to distribution of more than 5 grams of crack

cocaine after having previously been convicted of felony drug offenses, and the

district court1

 sentenced him as a career offender to 262 months, a sentence at the

bottom of the applicable guideline range. He argues on his direct appeal from the

judgment and sentence that the district court should have granted his motion for a

downward variance based on the unfair discrepancy between crack and powder

cocaine sentences or alternatively, that he was entitled to a lower sentence based on

Appellate Case: 07-3050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2008 Entry ID: 3431418
2

Thus, even though Clay's base offense level for drug quantity would be

lowered to 34 under the amendments, his guideline range would still be driven by his

career offender offense level of 37.

-2-

amendments to the sentencing guidelines for crack offenses which were then pending

but have now been enacted and apply retroactively. See USSG. app. C, amend. 706

& 711 (Supp. 2007); USSG app. C, amend. 713 (Supp. 2008). 

The district court's application of the advisory sentencing guidelines is reviewed

de novo. See United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942, 945 (8th Cir. 2008). We

review the sentence the court imposed for abuse of discretion, evaluating whether any

significant procedural error occurred and considering the substantive reasonableness

of the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United

States v. Whiting, No. 07-2599, 2008 WL 961171 (8th Cir. April 10, 2008). We may

presume that a sentence resulting from a proper application of the advisory guidelines

is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-63 (2007); see also

United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentence within properly

calculated guideline range presumptively reasonable).

At the sentencing hearing the district court stated that in determining Clay's

sentence it had considered all the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that

the downward variance Clay requested based on the sentencing disparity between

crack and powder cocaine would have no effect on the career offender provision

which determined his guideline range. At sentencing the drug quantity for which Clay

was responsible (736.72 grams of crack) produced a base offense level of 36 under the

drug quantity table in USSG § 2D1.1 (under the new amendments it would have been

34). Clay's offense level under the career offender provision in USSG § 4B1.1 was

37, however, and that level applied because it was "greater than the offense level

otherwise applicable." USSG § 4B1.1(b).2

 After subtracting three levels for

acceptance of responsibility, the district court found that Clay's total offense level was

Appellate Case: 07-3050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2008 Entry ID: 3431418
-3-

34 and his criminal history category as a career offender was VI, leading to a

guideline range of 262–327 months. 

Although the district court was authorized to consider the disparity between

crack and powder cocaine sentences, it was not required to do so. See Kimbrough v.

United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 575 (2007); United States v. Johnson, 517 F.3d 1020,

1024 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2008).

Clay is also not eligible for a sentence reduction based on the amendments to the crack

sentencing guideline because his sentencing range was determined by the career

offender provision in USSG § 4B1.1. See United States v. Tingle, No. 08-1777, (8th

Cir. May 1, 2008) (per curiam). Although the recent amendments to the sentencing

guidelines lowered the offense levels associated with crack in the drug quantity table

in USSG § 2D1.1, they did not change the career offender provision in § 4B1.1 and

thus would not lower Clay's sentencing range. See id. at 2 (Amendment 706 does not

apply retroactively if it does not lower defendant's applicable guideline range); see

also USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (Supp. Mar. 3 2008); cf. United States v. Moore, 481

F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir. 2007) (arguments concerning crack/powder ratio are

irrelevant if the ratio had no impact on career offender's sentence). 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

downward variance requested by Clay and that the sentence imposed was not

unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3050 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/07/2008 Entry ID: 3431418