Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02751/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Moorefield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-2751

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GARY MOOREFIELD, 

a/k/a G, a/k/a Maurice Gordon

a/k/a Mike Jones

 Gary Moorefield,

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-10-cr-00187-001)

District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

November 4, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: November 4, 2016)

____________

OPINION*

____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2751 Document: 003112454973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2016
2

Gary Moorefield appeals an order of the District Court denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We will affirm.

I

On September 16, 2010, a federal grand jury charged Moorefield and nine others

with various drug-trafficking crimes in a fifteen-count superseding indictment.

Moorefield pleaded not guilty to all twelve of the counts with which he was charged.

After three days of trial, Moorefield decided to plead guilty to two counts: conspiracy to 

distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a 

drug trafficking crime. In return, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, the Government agreed to a sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment

and dismissed the other charges. Moorefield also stipulated that he was responsible for 

more than three but less than ten kilograms of heroin for purposes of United States 

Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 2D1.1.

Prior to sentencing, the Probation Office determined that Moorefield’s total 

offense level on the conspiracy charge was 37 and his criminal history category was II, 

resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment. This 

calculation included enhancements for a leadership role, USSG § 3B1.1(a), and for 

maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled 

substance, USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12), as well as a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, 

USSG § 3E1.1(a). The Presentence Report also noted that Moorefield was subject to a 60-

month mandatory minimum consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm in 

Case: 15-2751 Document: 003112454973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2016
3

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. After hearing no objection to the Presentence 

Report, the District Court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Moorefield to 300 

months’ imprisonment (240 months for conspiracy to distribute heroin plus 60 months for

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime).

On June 18, 2015, Moorefield filed a motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, which decreased the base 

offense levels in certain drug cases by two levels. Reducing Moorefield’s base offense

level from 37 to 35 yielded an advisory Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. 

Moorefield argued that a proportional reduction in his sentence would lower his term of 

imprisonment for the conspiracy charge to 193 months, which would have resulted in a 

total of 253 months’ imprisonment. The Government conceded that Moorefield was 

eligible to seek this reduction, but opposed it in light of the plea agreement and the 

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

On July 7, 2016, the District Court denied Moorefield’s motion. After considering 

the favorable plea deal negotiated by Moorefield, his leadership role in the heroin

conspiracy, his possession of multiple firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking 

activities, his criminal history, and the danger he posed to the community, the Court 

determined that “the negotiated sentence of 300 months is the appropriate sentence in this 

case.” Sentence Reduction Order at 2. Moorefield filed this timely appeal.1

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for reduction of 

Case: 15-2751 Document: 003112454973 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2016
4

II

Consistent with the Government’s concession, the District Court found that

Moorefield was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. Accordingly, the 

District Court proceeded to consider whether any of the relevant § 3553(a) factors

warranted such a reduction.

Moorefield argues that the District Court abused its discretion by not considering 

the reduced Guidelines range before applying the § 3553(a) factors. His argument is 

misplaced. Although the District Court did not explicitly address the reduced Guidelines 

range in ruling on Moorefield’s motion, Moorefield cites no authority requiring it to do 

so. Moreover, both parties agreed that Moorefield was eligible for a sentence reduction 

and agreed upon his amended Guidelines range. The District Court clearly recognized 

Moorefield’s eligibility for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c), but after evaluating the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, concluded that a reduction was not appropriate. As Judge 

Ambrose explained: 

The denial of Defendant’s request for sentence reduction is based on 

consideration of the applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Defendant’s sentence (300 months) was reached after a negotiated resolution 

whereby Defendant, although charged with three separate 924(c) charges was 

sentenced without the mandatory 25 year consecutive sentence. Under the 

Superseding Indictment, Defendant’s advisory guideline range would have 

been at least 50 years more than the negotiated resolution.

Considering the seriousness of the offenses, a reduction is not appropriate. 

Defendant admitted to leading a heroin conspiracy and to being responsible for 

 

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 

152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009).

Case: 15-2751 Document: 003112454973 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/04/2016
5

3–10 kilograms of heroin. Defendant also admitted to possessing multiple 

firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking activities.

Furthermore, Defendant’s history and characteristics do not warrant the 

requested reduction. Defendant has been convicted previously of robbery and a 

federal firearms offense. Defendant also violated supervised release.

Defendant has demonstrated that he is a danger to the community and cannot 

be effectively treated by a sentence other than incarceration.

After considering these factors, I conclude that the negotiated sentence of 300 

months is the appropriate sentence in this case.

Sentence Reduction Order at 2.

Although Moorefield was eligible for a sentence reduction, the decision to grant 

one remains within the discretion of the District Court. See Mateo, 560 F.3d at 154. In 

this case, the Court considered the factors set forth in §3553(a) and determined that the 

seriousness of Moorefield’s offense, his criminal history, and the danger he posed to the 

community required that his original sentence should remain intact. Giving due deference 

to the District Court in these matters, we find no abuse of discretion and will affirm the 

District Court’s order.

Case: 15-2751 Document: 003112454973 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/04/2016