Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06167/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06167-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Deangelo Briggs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JASON DEANGELO BRIGGS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-6167 

(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-00089-R-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Defendant-Appellant Jason Deangelo Briggs appeals the district court’s denial 

of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that 

his sentence should be reduced because of Amendment 782 to the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the offense levels for certain drug offenses, 

even though he received a sentence below the amended guideline range. Exercising 

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

April 1, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6167 Document: 01019595975 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 1 
2 

 In 2009 Mr. Briggs pleaded guilty to a drug offense and a related firearm 

offense pursuant to a plea agreement. He was sentenced under the 2008 version of 

the Sentencing Guidelines, which yielded for the drug offense a guideline range of 

135 to 168 months. The district court granted a downward variance and imposed an 

84-month term on that offense and a consecutive 60-month term on the firearm 

offense for a total sentence of 144 months. 

 In June 2015 Mr. Briggs, proceeding pro se, moved for a sentence reduction 

based on Amendment 782, which became effective in November 2014. He argued 

that because his original sentence was 51 months below the low end of the guideline 

range applicable when he was sentenced, the district court had discretion to reduce 

his sentence to 51 months below the amended guideline range. The government 

responded by arguing that Mr. Briggs was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2) because he received a sentence that was below the amended guideline 

range and did not fall within the exception for defendants who provided substantial 

assistance to authorities. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2). The district court denied the 

motion without providing a reason, and this appeal followed. 

 On appeal Mr. Briggs argues that retrospective application of the current 

version of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) to his case violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. 

U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 3. We disagree. 

 We review de novo the scope of a district court’s authority under § 3582(c)(2) 

to resentence a defendant. United States v. Gay, 771 F.3d 681, 685 (10th Cir. 2014); 

see also United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008) (“We review 

Appellate Case: 15-6167 Document: 01019595975 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 2 
3 

de novo the district court’s interpretation of a statute or the sentencing guidelines.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). We also review de novo whether application of 

a sentencing guideline violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. United States v. Weiss, 

630 F.3d 1263, 1275 (10th Cir. 2010). Where, as here, a defendant does not raise an 

ex post facto argument before the district court, we review for plain error. See 

United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1258 (10th Cir. 2001). “To constitute plain 

error, the error must have been both obvious and substantial.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Mr. Briggs’s argument is premised on Amendments 759 and 782 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines, which were implemented after he was sentenced in 2009. 

Amendment 759, which took effect in November 2011, altered § 1B1.10 by limiting 

who was eligible for a sentence reduction based on subsequent amendments to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Before the amendment, a defendant could be eligible for a 

sentence reduction even if he or she received an original sentence that was below the 

amended guideline range: 

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 amended guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this 

subsection may be appropriate. However, if the original term of 

imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence . . . a further 

reduction generally would not be appropriate. 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (Nov. 2008). This exception applied only to “covered 

amendments” then listed in the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. § 1B1.10(c). Of course 

Appellate Case: 15-6167 Document: 01019595975 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 3 
4 

that list did not include Amendment 782 as it did not take effect until three years 

later. 

As amended by Amendment 759, § 1B1.10 allows reduced sentences for a 

defendant who received an original sentence that was below the amended guideline 

range only if he or she provided substantial assistance to authorities: 

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 motion to 

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

comparably less than the amended guideline range determined under 

subdivision (1) of this subsection may be appropriate. 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (Nov. 2014). This exception also applies only to 

“covered amendments” listed in the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. § 1B1.10(d). That 

list includes Amendment 782. 

 Amendment 782 took effect in November 2014, reducing by two the base 

offense level for certain drug offenses, including Mr. Briggs’s. 

 An ex post facto violation occurs when “a given change in law presents a 

sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered 

crimes.” Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2082 (2013) (internal quotation 

marks omitted); see also Weiss, 630 F.3d at 1276 (“At sentencing, an ex post facto 

violation occurs when the district court applies a guideline to an event occurring 

before its enactment, and the application of that guideline disadvantages the 

defendant by . . . increasing the punishment for the crime.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). We conclude Amendments 759 and 782, as applied to Mr. Briggs’s 

Appellate Case: 15-6167 Document: 01019595975 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 4 
5 

sentence, do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because they do not – either 

individually or in combination – retroactively increase the punishment for his 

offenses. 

 Moreover, applying the pre-Amendment 759 version of § 1B1.10 would not 

help Mr. Briggs because it never encompassed Amendment 782 for the obvious 

reason that it did not yet exist. When § 1B1.10 was amended in 2011, all later 

reductions in the Sentencing Guidelines were subject to that version, not to any 

previous version. See Weiss, 630 F.3d at 1275 (“Under the one-book rule, the 

Guidelines Manual in effect on a particular date shall be applied in its entirety.” 

(internal brackets and quotation marks omitted)); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(2) 

(“The court shall not apply . . . one guideline section from one edition of the 

Guidelines Manual and another guideline section from a different edition of the 

Guidelines Manual.”). 

 In United States v. Kurtz, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 1212066 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 

2016), published after briefing was completed in this case, this court rejected the 

legal theories advanced by Mr. Green regarding these amendments. Other circuits 

have also concluded that applying Amendment 759 as the district court did is not an 

ex post facto violation. See, e.g., United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 681 (9th 

Cir. 2014); United States v. Diggs, 768 F.3d 643, 645-46 (7th Cir. 2014); United 

States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2013). 

We discern no error, much less plain error. 

 

Appellate Case: 15-6167 Document: 01019595975 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 5 
6 

The district court’s order is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-6167 Document: 01019595975 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 6