Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05095/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05095-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Richard Jastrzembski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 14, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 15-5095

PAUL RICHARD JASTRZEMBSKI, 

Defendant - Appellant.

(D.C. No. 4:90-CR-00074-GKF-1)

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**

 

Defendant Paul Jastrzembski pled guilty in 1991 to conspiracy to manufacture

and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing, the

district court found Defendant conspired to manufacture and distribute 9.072

kilograms of methamphetamine. Defendant’s base offense level was 34 and

remained there after applicable enhancements and reductions. Coupled with a

criminal history category VI, Defendant’s base offense level resulted in a sentencing

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines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.

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellate Case: 15-5095 Document: 01019586020 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 1 
guidelines range of 262–327 months. The district court sentenced Defendant to 300

months’ imprisonment. In November 2014, Defendant moved for a reduction of

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 of the U.S.S.G.,

which revised § 2D1.1(c). The district court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider

the motion and Defendant appealed. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and summarily affirm.

Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a district court may reduce a previously

imposed prison term if the defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a

reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Commission has authorized a

§ 3582(c)(2) reduction if a guidelines amendment that it has declared retroactive

lowers the defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2). 

Amendment 782 retroactively reduced a number of drug quantity base offense levels

listed in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 by two levels. Unfortunately for Defendant, the base

offense level for manufacturing and distributing 9.072 kilograms of

methamphetamine was, at the time of his sentencing, and is now 34. Thus,

Defendant’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” The district court correctly concluded

that Defendant is not eligible for a reduction of sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).

2

Appellate Case: 15-5095 Document: 01019586020 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 2 
Accordingly. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

allowed, his motion for release on bail pending appeal is denied as moot, and the

decision of the district court is—

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

United States Circuit Judge

3

Appellate Case: 15-5095 Document: 01019586020 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 3