DL D- 2 4 1 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. 10- 1648

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . J OHN B AX a /k / a POW ERFUL, J o h n B a x , A p p e l l a n 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 . C r i m . N o. 93- 00117) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J ul y9, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N A N D H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y13, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antJ ohn B ax, a fe der al pr i s oneri ncar cer at ed atthe Feder al C orr ect i onalT he s ent enci ng courtdet erm i ned thatthe amountof cr ack c ocai ne i nvol ved 1 amount ed t o betw een f

i ve and f i ftygr ams, r es ul t i ng i n a B O L forB ax of 26. A s a ca r eer o f f e n d e r, h o w e v e r, h is b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l ( “ B O L ” ) u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 (b )( B ) b e c a m e 3 4 . B ax’ s s ent enci ng r ange, ata B O L of 34 and acr i m i nal hi s t oryof V I , w as 262 t o 327 m onths . B ax’ s s ent ence w as r oughl yi n the mi ddl e of thatr ange. 2 I ns t i tut i on atM cK ean i n B r adfor d, Penns y l vani a, appea l s the or derent er ed bythe U ni t ed S tate s D istric t 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 e n y in g h is m o tio n to m o d ifythe term o f h is i m p ri so n m en t pu rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). B ax w as convi ct ed i n 1993 of cons pi r acyt o m anufa ctur e and di s tr i but e coc ai ne and cr ack. H e w as s ent ence d t o s erve 286 mont hs i n pr i s on underthe ca r eeroffe nder gui del i nes . W e af

fi rm ed B ax’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence i n 1994. Si nce then, B ax has 1 uns ucce s s ful l ychal l enged hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 2255, 2 2 4 4 a n d 2 2 4 1 , a n d F e d e r a l Ru l e o f Cr i mi n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 5 ( a ) a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(1)(A )(I ). I n February2009, B ax fi l ed a mot i on t o m odi fyhi s pr i s on t erm pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . H e cl ai m ed thatthe courts houl d s hort en hi s s ent ence i n l i ghtof A m endment706 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U . S. S. G . ”) , w hi ch gener al l yr educe d the bas e off ens e l evel ( “B O L ”) fordrug convi ct i ons i nvol vi ng cr ack c o c a in e b ytw o lev e ls. H e a lso c laim e d th a t h is s e n ten c e sh o u ld b e lo w e re d b a se d o n h is r ehabi l i t at i on w hi l e i n pr i s on. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed B ax’ s § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on. R el y i ng on U ni t ed St at es v. M at eo, 560 F. 3d 152 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , the courtconcl uded thati tl acke d author i tyt o m odi fyB ax’ s r el i ance on U ni t ed St at es v. C orner , 598 F. 3d 411 ( 7th C i r . 2010) ( en 2 banc) , i n hi s m ot i on t o r ei ns t at e the appe al i s m i s pl ace d as i tdoes notaddr es s the r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of A m endment706. T he Seventh C i r cui tC ourtof A ppeal s has hel d thata def

endantm aynots eek r educt i on i n s ent ence pur s uantt o § 3582( c) ( 2) w hen A m en d m en t 70 6 d o es n o t l o w er the d ef en d an ts’ s sen tenc ing ran g e d u e to h is caree ro ff en d er status. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . F o rm an , 5 5 3 F . 3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 9 -90 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 3 Ba x ’ s s e n t e n c e u n d e rAm e n d me n t7 0 6 a n d i t s c o rr e s p o n d i n g p o l i c ys t a t e me n tU. S . S . G. § 1B 1. 10, becaus e the A m endmentl i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) di d nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng B ax’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. T he courtdet erm i ned thatB ax’ s s ent ence ra n g e w o u ld re m a in th e sa m e b e c a u se h is c a re e r o f f e n d e r sta tu s ra ise d th e o f f e n se lev e l to 3 4 a n d g a v e h im a c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f V I. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso h e ld th a t it coul d notgr antr el i ef ba s ed on B ax’ s r ehabi l i t at i on cl ai m becaus e r el i ef unde r§ 3582( c) w as li m it ed to co n side rati o n o f th e e ff ec t of the re tr o ac ti v e a m en d m en t on a d ef en d an t’ s se n ten c e . B a x f

iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. B ecaus e ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on on appea l , the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derw i l l be af fi rm ed. A s th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d , o u r h o ld in g in M a teo c o n tro ls th e re su lt i n B ax’ s cas e. I n M at eo, w e hel d thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtl acke d author i tyunder § 3582( c) ( 2) t o r educe M at eo’ s 188- m onth s ent ence fordi s tr i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne bas ed on A m endment706 and § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B ) , becaus e M at eo’ s ul t i m at e s ent enci ng r ange w as det erm i ned byhi s car eeroffe nders t atus , upon w hi ch A m endment706 had no effect. M at eo, 56 0 F . 3d at15 5. W e dis cern no m at eri al dis t i ncti on betw een B ax’s case

24

and M at eo. W e al s o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourtthati tl acke d author i tyunder § 3582( c) ( 2) t o cons i derB ax’ s r ehabi l i t at i on as a gr ound form odi fy i ng hi s s ent ence . See U ni t ed St at es v. D oe, 564 F. 3d 305, 309 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng thata di s tr i ctcourtl acks ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n p u rsu a n t to § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) if a d e f e n d a n t f a ils to sh o w eli g ibil ityfo r reli ef u n d er tha t pro v isi o n ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.