NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1151 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. A A R O N A G N E W, A p p e llan t. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1- 02- cr - 00055- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on N ovember10, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed M ar ch 30, 2010 ) O P I N I O N R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: A ar on A gnew appea l s hi s s ent ence of 210 m onths i m pr i s onm entaft era j urytr i al convi ct i ng hi m of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e more than 50 gr ams of cr ack coca i ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm as a convi ct edA gnew ’ s or i gi nal s ent ence of 300 m onths i m pr i s onm entw as r educe d t o 210 m onths 1 aft erthe D i s tr i ctC our tr es ent ence d hi m i n l i ghtof U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , w h i c h m a d e th e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s a d v i s o ry. 2 fel on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) . A gnew al l eges thatthe 1 D is tr ic t C o u rte rr e d b yd e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) , based o n the l ow er s entenci ng range p rovi ded byA m end m ent 706. H e al so s eeks t o be r es ent ence d bas ed on t es t i m onygi ven bythe D epartm entof J us t i ce r egar di ng the d i spari tyi n sentenci ng for crack cocaine and po w der cocaine. A gn ew l ast l ycon t end s, fori s s ue pr es ervat i on onl y , thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l ytr eat ed a Sent enci ng C o m m is s io n p o lic ys ta te m e n t a s m a n d a to ry. W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry r e v i e w o v e ra d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f th e S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s , a n d r e v i e w a decis i on con cerni ng a m oti on t o reduc e sent ence u nd er 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) for abu se o f d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

at eo , 5 6 0 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A gnew fi r s tcont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi m a s ent ence r educt i on bas ed on A m endment706, w hi ch r etr oact i vel yamended the Sent enci ng Gu i d e l i n e s b yl o we r i n g th e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o rmo s tq u a n t i t i e s o f

c r a c k c o c a i n e b ytwo le v e ls . See U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10. A defe ndanti s el i gi bl e fora s ent enci ng r educt i on i f he w as or i gi nal l y“s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. St

yer , 573 F. 3d 151, 153 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) ) . H ow ever , “w hen a3

r etr oact i ve amendm entdoes nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the G ui del i ne s ent ence , ” no re d u c tio n in th e te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t is a u th o ri z e d . U ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 564 F. 3d 305, 309, 315 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . A gnew ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange w as 360 m onths t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yfound w as unaff ect ed byA m endment 7 0 6 . T h e re f

o re , th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t e rrin re f u s in g to m o d if

yA g n e w ’s s e n te n c e . A ddi t i onal l y , w e r ej ectA gnew ’ s ar gum entthatthe phr as e “ba s ed on” c ont ai ned i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) is s o a m b ig u o u s a s to re q u ire th a t th e ru le o f len ityb e a p p lied in h is f a v o r. Se e id . ( the phr as e “ba s ed on” i n § 3582( c) ( 2) “do[e s ] notcont ai n s uch an a m b ig u ity th a t th e C o u rtc a n m a k e n o m o re th a n a g u e s s a s to w h a t C o n g re s s in te n d e d ” ). A g n ew n ex t asserts th at he is en ti tl ed to b e re sen tenc ed in li g h t of the D O J’s po si t i on on the d i spari tybetw een sen t ences g i ven for crack cocaine off enses and tho se gi ven forpow dercoca i ne off ens es . O n A pr i l 29, 2009, the A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al forthe D O J C r i m i nal D i vi s i on t es t i fi ed ata Senat e hea r i ng that , “The A dm i ni s tr at i on b e liev e s C o n g re ss ’s g o a l sh o u ld b e to c o m p lete lye lim in a te th e se n ten c in g d isp a rity betw een c r ack c ocai ne and pow dercoca i ne. ” See h ttp ://j u d ici ary . sen ate.go v /pd f/0 9 -04 - 29B r euer T es t i m ony . pdf at10 ( l as tvi s i t ed N ov. 12, 2009) . H ow ever , conce rn overthe di s par i tyi n s ent ence s gi ven forcr ack c ocai ne and pow dercoca i ne exi s t ed w hen A gnew w a s re s e n te n c e d . In d e e d , A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 w a s a n e f f o rtto d e a l w ith th e d is p a ri ty. M or eover , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on t o r educe A gnew ’ s s ent ence b a s e d o n its e x p re s s d is a g re e m e n t w ith th e c ra c k /p o w d e r s e n te n c in g d is p a ri ty. ( See A pp.4

31- 32 ( “I have a l w ay s fel tper s onal l ythatC ongr es s , i n enac t i ng thi s gr eatdi ffe r ence betw een pow derand cr ack, r eal l yi s unr eas onabl e, and thati s w hy. . . I r educe d the o rig in a l se n ten c e f

ro m w h a t th e g u id e lin e s m ig h t h a v e re q u ire d .”)) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v . R u ss e ll , 564 F. 3d 200, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( di s tr i ctcourt s m ayr educe s ent ence s bas ed o n th e iro p p o s itio n to th e p o lic yo f th e c ra c k /p o w d e r c o c a in e s e n te n c in g ra tio ). A ccor di ngl y , A gnew i s notent i t l ed t o be r es ent ence d bas ed on the D O J ’ s pos i t i on e n d o r s i n g th e e l i m i n a t i o n o f th e c r a c k /p o w d e rc o c a i n e s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i ty. Fi nal l y , A gnew ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l ytr eat ed a Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pol i cys t at ementcont ai ned i n s ect i on 1B 1. 10 of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes as m andat ory . H ow ever , w e have pr evi ous l yhel d that“U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10 i s bi ndi ng on the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o § 3582( c) ( 2) . ” D oe , 564 F. 3d at314. A ccor di ngl y , the D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in tr e a tin g th e p o lic ys ta te m e n t a s m a n d a to ry. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .