Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15622/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15622-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Siracuse
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15622

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cr-60319-DTKH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

THOMAS SIRACUSE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 30, 2016)

Before HULL, MARCUS, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 1 of 9
2

Defendant Thomas Siracuse appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 

to the Sentencing Guidelines. After careful review, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

In 2012, Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to import 1,000 kilograms or 

more of marijuana into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 

960(b)(1)(G), and 963. 

In anticipation of sentencing, the probation officer prepared a Presentence 

Investigation Report (“PSR”). The PSR assigned Defendant a base offense level of 

34, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), because the offense involved conspiracy to 

import with intent to distribute at least 3,000 but less than 10,000 kilograms of 

marijuana. He received a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) 

because he was an organizer or leader of criminal activity involving five or more 

participants. With a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, 

Defendant’s total offense level was 35. Based on a total offense level of 35 and a 

criminal history category of I, Defendant’s advisory guideline range was 168 to 

210 months’ imprisonment. 

At sentencing, the parties agreed that Defendant was entitled to 40 months of 

credit for time he spent incarcerated in Switzerland for money laundering and drug 

trafficking offenses. Defendant’s counsel stated that he had consulted the 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 2 of 9
3

Government and the probation officer, and it was believed that “the best way to 

[award Defendant credit] is by a variance, take whatever sentence you were about 

to give him, if you’re considering 168, we ask that you take 40 months off that, and 

that you pronounce a sentence of 128 months.” The Government agreed, and the

district court sentenced Defendant to 128 months’ imprisonment, explaining that it 

had arrived at that sentence by deducting 40 months from the 168-month sentence

it would have ordinarily imposed. Not long after the sentencing hearing, the 

district court granted the Government’s motion for a reduction of sentence based 

on Defendant’s substantial assistance pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 35. The district court consequently reduced Defendant’s sentence to 96 

months’ imprisonment (which reflected a 25% reduction). 

In 2015, Defendant filed a counseled § 3582(c)(2) motion, asserting that he 

was eligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 lowered his 

guideline range to 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. Specifically, Defendant 

asserted that his sentence should be reduced to 71 months’ imprisonment because 

he received 40 months of credit for time served pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3,

1 in 

addition to the 25% reduction he received for substantial assistance. 

 1 Section 5G1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines (Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Subject 

to an undischarged Term of Imprisonment or Anticipated Term of Imprisonment) provides in 

relevant part: 

(b) If . . . a term of imprisonment resulted from another offense that is relevant 

conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 3 of 9
4

The district court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that Defendant 

was not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. The district court 

explained that with the two-level reduction of his offense level under Amendment 

782, Defendant’s amended guideline range was 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. 

Moreover, the court determined that the 40-month downward variance Defendant 

had received at sentencing was not related to substantial assistance. The district 

court explained that § 5G1.3 did not apply to Defendant at the time of sentencing 

and therefore did not permit the district court to re-apply the 40-month sentence 

reduction. In support, the court noted that Defendant had not argued at sentencing 

that his Swiss offenses were relevant conduct to his federal offense, nor had he

provided a basis for the district court to conclude that the offenses involved 

relevant conduct. Nevertheless, the district court applied the 25% reduction 

 

(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), and that was the basis for 

an increase in the offense level for the instant offense under Chapter Three 

(Adjustments), the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed as follows: 

(1) the court shall adjust the sentence for any period of imprisonment 

already served on the undischarged term of imprisonment if the court 

determines that such period of imprisonment will not be credited to the 

federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons; and 

(2) the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run 

concurrently to the remainder of the undischarged term of imprisonment. 

(c) (Policy Statement) In any other case involving an undischarged term of 

imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run 

concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged 

term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense. 

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)-(c) (2006). 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 4 of 9
5

Defendant received pursuant to Rule 35, which brought the low end of the 

amended guideline range to 101 months’ imprisonment. Because 101 months was 

greater than the 96-month sentence that Defendant received at his original 

sentencing, the district court determined that Defendant was not eligible for a 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782. 

Defendant now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by concluding 

that he was not eligible for a sentence reduction. In particular, he asserts that the 

district court impermissibly made new fact findings related to whether his Swiss 

offenses were relevant conduct to the present marijuana-distribution conspiracy. 

II. DISCUSSION

We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions on the scope of its 

authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th 

Cir. 2008). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. United 

States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a term of imprisonment 

when the original sentencing range has been subsequently lowered as a result of an 

amendment to the Guidelines by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). To be eligible for a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a 

defendant must identify an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that is listed 

in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and the amendment must actually lower the guideline 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 5 of 9
6

range that was calculated by the sentencing court. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1); Id.

§ 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). Defendant relies on Amendment 782, which 

reduced the base offense level for most drug offenses by two levels. Id.

§ 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G. App. C., Amend. 782 (2014). 

When determining eligibility for a sentence reduction, a district court is to 

consider only the effect of the applicable guideline amendment; all other original 

sentencing determinations are to remain the same. United States v. Bravo, 203 

F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 

831 (2010). Generally, if a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2), the district court cannot reduce his sentence below the low end of the 

amended guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Nonetheless, the district 

court may reduce the defendant’s sentence below the low end of the amended 

guideline range if it sentenced the defendant below the original guideline range 

pursuant to a substantial-assistance motion by the government. Id.

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). In such cases, it can grant a “comparable” substantialassistance reduction by using a percentage-based approach or by using another 

reasonable method for determining the proper extent of a substantial-assistance 

reduction. United States v. Marroquin-Medina, 817 F.3d 1285, 1292–93 (11th Cir. 

2016). The commentary to § 1B1.10 prohibits a district court in a § 3582(c)(2) 

proceeding from sentencing the defendant below the minimum of the amended 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 6 of 9
7

guideline range to account for a downward departure or variance that was not 

based on a substantial-assistance motion. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); Id.

§ 1B1.10, comment. (n.3). 

Here, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) 

motion. Amendment 782 lowered Defendant’s offense level from 35 to 33, 

resulting in an amended guideline range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. See 

U.S.S.G. App. C., Amend. 782 (2014). Although the district court was not 

permitted to reduce Defendant’s sentence by 40 months to account for the 

downward variance Defendant received at sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), 

the district court was permitted to grant a “comparable” substantial-assistance 

reduction to account for the one Defendant received pursuant to the Government’s 

Rule 35 motion. Marroquin-Medina, 817 F.3d at 1292–93. Accordingly, the 

lowest possible sentence Defendant could receive, taking into account the 25% 

substantial-assistance reduction, was 101 months’ imprisonment. Because 101 

months is greater than the 96-month sentence the district court imposed at 

sentencing, the district court properly determined that Defendant was not eligible 

for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); Id.

§ 1B1.10, comment. (n.3). 

Defendant argues that although the district court awarded him a 40-month 

reduction at sentencing based on a finding that Defendant’s Swiss offenses were 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 7 of 9
8

related to the present drug conspiracy, the district court erroneously concluded that 

Defendant was not eligible for the same reduction during the § 3582(c)(2) 

proceedings because there was no factual predicate showing that the Swiss 

offenses were relevant conduct. Contrary to Defendant’s contentions, the district 

court never found during the sentencing hearing that Defendant’s Swiss offenses 

involved relevant conduct. Defendant also did not provide any evidence 

demonstrating that his Swiss offenses were relevant conduct to the present offense.

While the district court stated during the sentencing hearing that it had 

discretion to impose a sentence that accounted for another sentence based on the 

same criminal conduct, the record makes clear that the district court did not impose 

an adjustment for relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, as argued by 

Defendant. Instead, the record shows that (1) the parties agreed to a downward 

variance to account for the time Defendant spent in Swiss prison and (2) the 

district court granted a 40-month downward variance on that basis. Because the 

reduction Defendant received was a downward variance, the district court was not 

permitted to reduce his sentence to account for that variance. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(b)(2), comment. (n.3). Consequently, Defendant has not shown that the 

district court made any impermissible fact findings that contradicted those made 

during the original sentencing hearing. Nor has he shown that the district court 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 8 of 9
9

erred by determining that he was not entitled to a sentence reduction under 

Amendment 782. 

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a 

reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is AFFIRMED.

2

 

 2 We note that Defendant has abandoned any argument he may have had regarding whether 

principles of equity required the district court to re-apply the 40-month sentence reduction during 

the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. While Defendant argues extensively about equity principles in his 

reply brief, he includes only a cursory statement on this point in the conclusion section of his 

initial brief. United States v. Durham, 795 F.3d 1329, 1330–31 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) 

(explaining that a defendant is prohibited from raising an argument for the first time in his reply 

brief, except in limited circumstances not relevant to this appeal); United States v. Jernigan, 341 

F.3d 1273, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that an issue will be deemed abandoned if it is not 

“plainly and prominently” raised). We therefore decline to address this argument. 

USCA11 Case: 15-15622 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 9 of 9