NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR T HE T HIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 1 6 1 5

__________

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

v.

K R I S H N A M O T E

, aka “ Chris ” aka “ Kris ”

, A p p e l l a n t

__ __________________________________
On Appeal from the Un i ted States District Co u rt for the M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a (D.C. C r i m i n a l Action No

. 3:11

- cr

- 00194

- 001 )

District Judg e: Ho norable J ames M. Munley

____________________________________

Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
O c t o b e r 2 3

, 2 0 2 0 Before: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , K R A U S E a n d B I B A S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : December 10, 2020 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposit i on i s not an opinion o f the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O. P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 K r i s h n a M o t e appeals pro se app eals from a n order of the United States District

Court for the M i d d l e Distri ct of Pennsylvania denyin g his motion t o r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e

u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 0 4 o f t h e F i r s t S t e p A c t o f 2 0 1 8

. We will affir m

.

In 2007, a federal g rand jury indicted Mote o n c h a r g e s o f conspi ring to di stribute

more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and 500 gr ams of powder cocaine. T h e District

Court ultim a tely dismissed th a t indictment without prejudice due to a speedy trial

violation. In 2011, the Go vernment obtained another indic tment against Mote b ased on

the same conspiracy, but this time it charged that the conspiracy involved 2 80 grams of

c rack coca i ne , a l o n g w i t h 5 0 0 g r a m s o f p o w d e r c o c a i n e

. I n 2 0 1 2

, a jury found Mote

guilty of (1) conspiring to distrib ute 280 g rams or more of crack coca ine and 500 g r ams

or more powder cocaine

, s e e 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 6

, an d (2) aiding and abetting the distribution

of cr a ck coca ine

, s e e 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2

. I n M a y 2 0 1 3

, t he District

Court imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on th e c o n s p i r a c y c onviction

(based on M o t e ’ s prior felony drug convic tions, se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 1 (b)(1)(A) ( 2 0 1 0 ) )

,

and sentenced Mote to 360 months in prison on the aiding and abetting conviction. W e

affirmed

. S e e United States v. Mo te , 553 F. App’x 117, 118 ( 3d Cir . 20 14 ) ( n o t

p r e c e d e n t i a l ) ( not i n g that, “with three prior felony con victions, the D istrict Court

properly sentenced [Mote] to a mandated life imprisonment.” )

, c e r t

. d e n i e d

, 1 3 4 S

. C t

.

2 7 1 6

. Mote filed a pro se m o t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2255 . T he D istrict Cou rt denied that

motion on the merits, a n d w e denied a c ertificate of appealabili t y

. S ee U n i t e d S t a t e s v

.

M o t e , C.A. No. 15

- 1409 ( o r d e r e n t e r e d N o v

. 3

, 2 0 1 5 )

. On October 6, 2017, President3 O bama granted clemency, and Mo te’s sentence was commuted to 240 mon th s of

imprisonment.

I n N o v e m b er 2 0 1 9

, M o t e f i l e d a p r o s e “Mo tion for Hearing and Reduced

Sentence U n der the First Step Act

. ” 1 ( E C F 1 7 8

. ) T h e G o v e r n m e n t o p p o s e d t h a t m o t i o n ,

a r g u i n g t h a t M o t e w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f b e c a u s e h e h a d a l r e a d y b e e n s e n t e n c e d i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e F i r s t S t e p A c t

, wh i c h m a d e r e tr o a c t i v e c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f th e F a i r

S e n t e n c i n g A c t

. ( E C F 1 8 2

. ) T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i on , h o l d i n g t h a t “ Mote

has already received the benefit o f the Fair Sentencing Act’s releva nt mo d ifications

... . ”

M o t e a p p e a l e d

. 2

I n 2 0 1 0

, C o n g r e s s e n a c t e d t h e F a i r S e n t e n c i n g A c t

, w h i c h r e d u c e d t h e sentencing

d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n c r a c k c o c a i n e a n d p o w d e r c o c a i n e

. Dorsey v. United States , 567 U.S.

260, 269 (2012 ) ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J a c k s o n , 9 6 4 F

. 3 d 1 9 7

, 2 0 0 n

. 2 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 2 0 )

.

Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act incre a sed the quantity of co c aine base required to

trigger mandatory minimum sentences. 3 F o r e x a m p l e , i t raised the threshol d for the 10

-

1 P u r s u a n t t o a s t a n d i n g o r d e r pertaining to action s brought under S ect i on 404 o f t he First Step Act

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a p p o i n t e d t h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ’ s O f f

i c e t o r e present M o t e. (ECF 179.) That O f f

i c e later succes sfully m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w , n o t i n g that it “ and
Mr . Mote have a difference of opinion concerning the appl i cation o f

... the First Step Act
to the fac t s of his case. ” (ECF 180).

2 We have jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291

, a n d w e e x e r c i s e p l e n a r y review o v e r the District Court’s order

. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. E a s t e r , - - F

. 3 d

- - , 2 0 2 0 W L 5 5 2 5 3 9 5

, a t * 3 ( 3 d C i r

. S e p t

. 1 5

, 2 0 2 0 )

. 3 S e ction 3 of the F ai r S e ntencing Act, which is not relev a nt here, eliminated th e mandator y minimum for simple p ossession in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). S e e United States v. Shaw

, 957 F.3d 734, 736 ( 7th C ir. 2020).4 year m a n d a t o r y minimum s e n t e n c e f rom 50 grams to 280 grams. I d

. at 269

. T h e F i r s t

S t e p A c t

, e n a c t e d i n 2 0 1 8

, m a d e S e c t i o n s 2 a n d 3 o f t he F a i r S e n t e n c i n g A c t r e t r o a c t i v e l y

a p p l i c a b l e

. S e e E a s t e r , 2 0 2 0 W L 5 5 2 5 3 9 5

, a t * 2 ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B o u l d i n g , 9 6 0

F

. 3 d 7 7 4

, 7 7 7 ( 6 t h C i r

. 2 0 2 0 )

. I n p a r t i c u l a r , S e c t i o n 4 0 4 ( b ) o f t h e F i r s t S t e p A c t

provide d t h a t t h e c o u r t “ that im p osed a sentence for a c overed offense may, on motion of

the defendant

... impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sent e ncing

Act of 2010

... were in effect at th e time the covered offense was committed.” § 404(b)

,

132 Stat. 5 1 9 4

, 5222. N o t a b l y , h o w e v e r , t h e F i rst S t ep A c t e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t e d

a p p l i c a t io n o f 4 0 4 ( b ) w h e r e t h e “ sentence was previously impose d o r p r e v i o u sl y r e d u c e d

in accord ance with th e amend ments m ade by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act

... . ” F i r st S t e p A c t

, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 4 0 4 ( c )

, 1 3 2 S t a t

. a t 5 2 2 2

. H e r e , t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t s e n t e n c e d M o t e i n M a y 2 0 1 3

, s e v e r a l y e a r s a f t e r t h e F a i r S e n t e n c i n g A c t w a s

e n a c t e d

. T h u s , M o t e alre ady r ece ived the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act ’ s redu ced

penalt ies for crack

- c o caine offenses

. 4 S e e D o r s e y v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 6 7 U

. S

. 2 6 0

, 2 8 1

4 In his brie f, Mote no tes that the Government stated i n its response t o his § 2255 motion

t hat h is “ s entence in t h is case was n ot determined by the F air S entencing Ac t or by the sentencing g uidel ines. ” Pet ’r ’s B r ., 4. R e ad in context, h owever, it appears that the
Go vernment w as not asserting that Mote was s ubject to a pre

- F a ir S e ntencing Act

s entencing scheme. Rat h er, the Government seemingly was no ting that Mote ’ s mandatory li fe sentence wa s imposed as a result of his prior felony conv ictions

. (ECF 148, at 9.) In any event

, i t is clear from the record th at Mote was sente nc ed in
accordance w ith the Fair Sentencin g Act , which changed the law in his favor by increasing the quantity of crack cocaine needed to trig ger mandatory minimum pen alties. Before the Fair Sente ncing Act, an d at the time of Mote’s condu ct, M ote would ha ve been subject to a sentence of life impr i sonment even if his conviction involved only 505 ( 2 0 1 2 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t “ that Congress intended the Fair Sentencing Act ’ s new, lower

mandatory minim ums to apply to the post

- Act sentencing of pre

- Act offenders ” )

.

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t M o t e i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r r e l i e f

u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 0 4 ( b ) o f t h e F i r s t S t e p A c t

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J o n e s , 9 6 2 F

. 3 d 1 2 9 0

,

1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 2 0 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t “ [ a ] district court may not ‘ entertain a mot ion ’ from a

defendant who already benefitted fro m the Fair S entencing Act by having his sentence

imposed or reduced ‘ in accordance with ’ sections two or three of th e Fair Sentencing

Act ” )

.

F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e w i l l a f f

i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

grams of crack cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A) (2006 version).