2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-2-2009 

# U SA v . Mich a el M a ck P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2883

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Mich a el M a ck " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1247. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1247NOT 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. 08- 2883

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . M I CH AE L M AC K, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 3- 06- cr - 00271- 001) D i s tr i c tJ u d g e : H o n o r a b l e R i c h a r d P . C o n a b o y

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 1, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 2, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M ich a e l M a c k a p p e a ls f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to m o d if

yh is sen tenc e f

il ed p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 . F o r th e f o ll o w ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt.2

O n A ugus t9, 2006, a gr and j uryr eturned an i ndi ctm entagai ns tM ack c har gi ng hi m w i th pos s es s i on of coc ai ne bas e ( cr ack) and var i ous fi r earm offe ns es . O n O ct ober 17, 2006, M ack pl eade d gui l tyt o di s tr i but i on and pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e an u n sp e c if ied q u a n tityo f

c o c a in e b a se (c ra c k ). In th e p lea a g re e m e n t, th e p a rties a g re e d to r e c o mme n d t o th e c o u r tth a tM a c k wa s i n v o l v e d i n th e d i s tr i b u t i o n o f l e s s th a n f

i v e g r a ms o f c o c a in e b a se , tha t h e is a c a re e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s re su lti n g in an off ens e l evel of 32 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , and thata s ent ence w i thi n t he g u id e lin e ra n g e is re a s o n a b le . (S u p p . A p p . 1 6 .) T he pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eportconcl uded thatM ack ha d tw o pr i or convi ct i ons thatqual i fi ed hi m as a “c ar eeroffe nder ” pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1. T he rep o rtalso fo u n d that M ac k ’s of fe n se lev el w as 2 9 an d crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryw as V I, r es ul t i ng i n a gui del i ne i m pr i s onm entr ange of 151 t o 188 m onths . T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance underU . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, recom m end i ng a t w o-l evel departure t o a g uidel i ne rang e of 1 30 t o 1 62 m on ths’ im p ri so n m en t, an d the g o v ern m en t spe cifica ll yrec o m m en d ed in the m o ti o n that the c o u rt i m pos e a s ent ence of 132 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . ( Supp. A pp. at42, 44. ) M ack f i l ed a s ent enci ng m emora ndum r eques t i ng thatthe courti m pos e a s ent ence bel ow the gui del i ne r ange ba s ed on the fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng the cr ack- pow der c o c a in e d if

f e re n tia l. ( S u p p . A p p . a t 3 0 -3 9 .) T h e d istric t co u rt u lti m a telyim p o se d a se n ten c e o f 9 6 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t,U nder§ 3582( c) ( 2) , w hi ch di s cus s es r educt i on of a s ent ence thathas been l ow er ed 1 bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, a court“mayr educe the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , aft er c o n sid e rin g th e f

a c to rs s e t f

o rth in se c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ) to th e e x ten t th a t th e ya re a p p lica b le, if s uch a r educt i on i s cons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” 3 not i ng thati tw as depart i ng fr om the gui del i ne r ange ba s ed on: i t s det erm i nat i on that M a c k ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y o v e rr e p r e s e n t e d h i s a c tu a l c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y; M ack’ s cooper at i on w i th t he governm ent ; hi s addi ct i on t o contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s and; t he di s par i tyi n t he puni s hm entbetw een of fens es i nvol vi ng cr ack c ocai ne and pow der coca i ne. T he 96- m onth s ent ence r epr es ent ed a 36- m onth var i ance fr om the s ent ence t he governm entr ecomm ended i n i t s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . I n N ovember2007, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on amended the cr ack c ocai ne gui del i nes byr educi ng the bas e off ens e l evel s forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es under§ 2D . 1( c) bytw o l evel s . See U ni t ed St at es v. M at eo, 560 F. 3d 152, 154 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . T he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on decl ar ed the amendm entt o be r etr oact i ve. I d. O n M ar ch 21, 2008, M ack f

i l ed a mot i on form odi fi cat i on of hi s s ent ence underthe r etr oact i ve cr ackco ca ine a m en d m en ts. S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2); U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 1 0 . T h e d istri ct co u rt 1 deni ed the mot i on, r eas oni ng thati ti m pos ed a s ent ence thatvar i ed fr om the gui del i nes pur s uantt o § 3553( a) and U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . M ack f i l ed a ti m elyp ro se n o ti ce o f a p p ea l from that o rde r. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s f i n a l o r d e rp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C.4

§ 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 . W e e x erc ise d e n o v o rev iew o v er the d istri ct co u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . See U ni t ed St at es v. W ood, 526 F. 3d 82, 85 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e r evi ew the court ’ s deci s i on t o denya def endant ’ s m ot i on t o r educe a s ent ence pur s uantt o § 3582( c) forabus e of di s cr et i on. See M at eo, 560 F. 3d at154. M a c k a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yre f u sin g to re d u c e h is s ent ence tw o l evel s underthe amendm ent s t o the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he G overnm entcount er s byar gui ng thatM ack w as s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe nderunder § 4B 1. 1. and thus the l ow er i ng of the bas e off ens e l evel under§ 2D 1. 1( c) has no eff ecton h is s e n te n c e . A s w e e x p la in e d in M a te o , “ [ t] o b e e n title d to a re d u c tio n o f s e n te n c e , a defe ndant ’ s s ent enci ng r ange musthave be en l ow er ed byr eca l cul at i on bas ed on the amended bas e off

ens e l evel . ” I d. H er e, as i n M at eo, M ack’ s s ent enci ng r ange w as d e te rm in e d b a s e d o n h is s ta tu s a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 a n d n o t u n d e r § 2 D 1 .1 . T h e re f o re , as in M a teo , the a m e n d m e n t to § 2 D 1 .1 (c ) d o e s n o t au th o riz e a re d u c tio n in h is s e n te n c e . Id . a t 1 5 5 . M ack’ s r el i ance on U ni t ed St at es v. Poi ndext er , 550 F. Supp. 2d 578 ( E . D . Pa. 2008) , i s i nappos i t e. I n t hatcas e, the s ent enci ng j udge, pr e- B ooker , found that P o in td e x ter ’s c a re e r o f

f e n d e r d e sig n a tio n o v e rre p re se n ted th e to tal o f f e n se lev e l in h is cas e. I d. at579. A ccor di ngl y , the j udge depa r t ed dow nw ar d fr om l evel 34 t o l evel 27, w hi ch w as the off

ens e l evel Poi nt dext erw oul d have f ace d abs entthe ca r eeroffe nder d e s ig n a tio n . Id . a t 5 8 1 . T h is n e w o f f e n s e le v e l w a s b a s e d o n § 2 D 1 .1 . Id . a t 5 8 2 .5

H er e, w hi l e the s ent enci ng j udge not ed thathe w as depart i ng fr om the rec o m m en d ed g u ideline ra n g e b ec au se M ac k ’s “c are er o ff en d er status su b stan ti all yo v err epr es ent s the s er i ous nes s of [hi s ] cr i m i nal hi s t ory , ” ul t i m at el ythe courtdi d notl ow ert he t ot al offe ns e l evel and s ent ence d M ack a s a ca r eeroffe nderpur s uantt o § 4B 1. 1. ( Supp. A p p . at 43 . ) T h u s, instead o f d ec li n ing to ap p ly§ 4 B 1 . 1 , as th e c o u rtd id in P o intde x ter, the courtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on under§ 3553( a) and B ookert o departfr om the r ecomm ended gui del i ne r ange. ( I d. at40. ) T her efor e, the amendm entt o the cr ackc o c a in e g u id e lin e s d o e s n o t af f e c t M a c k ’s to tal o f

f e n se lev e l. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er d en y ing M ac k ’s m o tio n to re d u c e h is s e n ten c e . M a c k ’s m o tio n re q u e stin g a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l is deni ed.