Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02688/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02688-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Rinaldi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2688

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL RINALDI,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 3-98-cr-00294-002)

District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 19, 2015

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 1, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

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

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2688 Document: 003112142954 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2015
2

Pro se appellant Michael Rinaldi appeals the District Court’s order denying his

motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review is plenary. United States v. Savani, 

733 F.3d 56, 60 (3d Cir. 2013). For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm.

In June 1999, a jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania found Rinaldi guilty of 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846, distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), using a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and possession of firearms by a convicted felon in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After reviewing the Presentence Investigation Report 

(PSR) and two addenda, the District Court determined that Rinaldi qualified as a career 

offender under § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Based on that 

designation, Rinaldi’s Guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment. However, 

the District Court concluded that Rinaldi’s career-offender status significantly overrepresented his criminal history. The Court therefore departed downward, and sentenced 

Rinaldi to an aggregate term of 248 months’ imprisonment. This sentence is within the 

Guidelines range that would have applied if Rinaldi were not a career offender. On direct 

appeal, we affirmed. United States v. Rinaldi, 248 F.3d 1131 (3d Cir. 2000) (unpublished 

table decision).

Rinaldi has since challenged his conviction and sentence in a variety of ways. As 

relevant here, Rinaldi filed a motion under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the 

Case: 15-2688 Document: 003112142954 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2015
3

Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels assigned to most drug quantities under 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) by two levels. The District Court denied Rinaldi’s motion. Rinaldi 

then filed a timely notice of appeal.1

We agree with the District Court’s decision to deny Rinaldi’s motion. A district 

court generally cannot “modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed” unless 

a defendant is eligible for a reduction pursuant to § 3582(c). Section 3582(c)(2) allows 

for a reduction if (1) the sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently 

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” and (2) “a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 

United States v. Flemming, 723 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir. 2013).

Here, a reduction in Rinaldi’s sentence would not be “consistent with applicable 

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” A reduction in a sentence is 

not consistent with the relevant policy statement unless the amendment has “the effect of 

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

Guidelines define “applicable guideline range” as “the guideline range that corresponds 

to the offense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), 

which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines 

Manual.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (emphasis added); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 

cmt. n.6. As we have held in similar cases, this means that Rinaldi’s applicable guideline 

 

1 The District Court permissibly granted Rinaldi’s motion for an extension of time to file 

an appeal under Rule 4(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rinaldi 

filed within the time prescribed by the District Court. 

Case: 15-2688 Document: 003112142954 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/01/2015
4

range is the “range calculated pursuant to the career offender designation of § 4B1.1, and 

not the range calculated after applying any departure or variance.” Flemming, 723 F.3d 

at 412; see also United States v. Ware, 694 F.3d 527, 534 (3d Cir. 2012).2 Accordingly, 

Amendment 782 — which alters the offense levels for drug crimes but does not affect the 

offense levels for career offenders — would not lower Rinaldi’s applicable guidelines 

range, and it would thus be contrary to the applicable policy statement to reduce Rinaldi’s 

sentence.

We will therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

 

2 Contrary to Rinaldi’s contentions, the Second Addendum to the PSR, the sentencing 

hearing, and the District Court’s statement of reasons in support of its sentence all make 

clear that the District Court determined that Rinaldi was a career offender but then 

departed downward because the Court believed that the career-offender designation overrepresented Rinaldi’s criminal history. Accordingly, we agree with the Government that 

Rinaldi’s “applicable guideline range” is the range calculated under the career-offender 

provisions.

Case: 15-2688 Document: 003112142954 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/01/2015