# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 22 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Vict or Bern ard Jo ne s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 4, 2 01 6 Fil ed : J un e 1 6, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.
Vict or Jo ne s ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a se nt en ce red uc ti on un de r 1
18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.I. BACKGRO UND

In 20 10
, Jo ne s pl ed gu i l t y t o di st rib ut in g he ro in wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an el em en ta ry sc ho ol aft er a pr io r fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti o n , a vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C)
, 85 1, an d 86 0. In ex ch an ge fo r Jo ne s’s g ui lt y pl ea, th e
go ve rn m en t di sm is se d two a d d i t io na l dr ug ch arg es an d ag reed no t to se ek a

m an da to ry li fe se nt en ce. The pl ea ag reem en t, whi ch ex pr es sl y di d no t bi nd th e di st ric t co ur t, se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (c)( 1) (C), pr ov id ed th at if Jo ne s was no t fo un d

to be a care er of

fen de r, Jo ne s an d th e go ve r n men t a g r eed “ an up ward de pa rtu re [u nd er Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s) § 4A1 .3] to an of fen se le ve l of

31 an d a Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg or y VI, wit h a se nt en ci ng ran ge of
18 8 to 23 5 m on th s[ ,] [wa]s ap pr op ria te ” to acco un t fo r Jo ne s’s “ su bs t an ti al un de rrep res en t[e d] . . . cri m in al hi st or y .”

Th e di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed Jo ne s’s pl ea, fo un d he was no t a care er o f f e n d e r , gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s un op po se d m ot io n fo r an up ward de pa rtu re, an d se nt en ced
Jo ne s to 23 5 m on th s im

pr is on m en t fo ll owe d by si x y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Jo ne s

a p p e a l e d hi s se nt en ce an d we affi rm ed

. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 63 9 F.3 d 4 8 4
, 48 8 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

Effe ct iv e Nov em

be r 1, 20 14
, th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on red uc ed by t wo le ve ls th e b a se of fen se le ve ls in th e dr ug qu an ti ty t ab le at U.S.S.G. § 2D 1

. 1 ( c )
, w hi ch was us ed to cal cu la te Jo ne s’s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge

. See
U.S.S.G. su pp

. to ap p. C, am en d. 78 2. Am en dm en t 78 2 em po wered th e di st ric t co ur t
t o r e d u c e Jo ne s’s pr is on te rm pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c). See U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a), (d ).

On Mar ch 5, 20 15
, th e di st ric t co ur t, on it s own m ot io n, ha d th e Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce pr ep are a m em or an du m reg ard in g Jo ne s’s “ el ig ib il it y fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on un de r 18 U.S.C

. § 3 5 8 2 (c)( 2) .” The go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed Jo ne s was el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on un de r Am en dm en t 78 2, bu t arg ue d a red uc ti on was

-2

-un warra nt ed be c a u s e o f t he na tu re of Jo ne s’s of fen se an d hi s “ le ng th y an d vi ol en t cri m in al hi st or y .”

Afte r ho ld in g a se nt en c e

- r e d u ct io n he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d
Am en dm en t 78 2 di d no t jus ti fy a red uc ti on in Jo ne s’s se nt en ce un de r 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0. The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d “ th e red uc ti on in th e of fen se le ve l fo r dr ug qu an ti ty

. . . [d id ]n’ t real ly ap pl y he re be cau se th e se nt en ce [wa]s no t dr iv en by th e to ta l of fen se le ve l b a s e d o n dr ug qu an ti ty, bu t, rat he r, by a

va rie t y of ot he r is su es , in cl ud in g cri m in al hi st or y , [an d] th e se rio us ne ss of th e

un de rlyin g c riminal co nd uc t.”

II

. DISCUSS IO N
Jo ne s ap pe al s t he de ni al of a sen te nc e red uc ti on , a rg ui ng “ [t]he di st ric t co ur t

erre d in fin di ng th at Mr. Jo ne s’ pl ea ag reem en t was a bi nd in g Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) pl ea
ag reem en t th at pr ecl ud e[d ] a se nt en ci ng red uc ti on .” As Jo ne s se es it
, “ al th ou gh th e Dis tri ct Co ur t m ay no t ha ve us ed th e ph ras e ‘bin di ng Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) pl ea
ag reem en t,’ th at was cl earl y th e un de rlyin g as su m pt io n of th e Dis tri c t C ou rt’s

an al y si s.” J on es alt ern at iv el y arg ue s t ha t if the di st ric t co ur t d id reco gn iz e th e p le a
ag reem en t was no t bi nd in g, it s de ci si on t o d e n y a red uc ti on was an ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Upo n caref

ul rev ie w, we fin d no ba si s to rev ers e. See Uni te d Stat es v. Long
, 75 7 F.3 d 76 2, 76 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) ( n o t i n g we rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l co nc lu si on th at a de fen da n t i s e l i g i b l e fo r an 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) red uc ti on an d rev ie w fo r ab u s e o f d i s c r et io n th e de ci si on to gr an t or de ny a red uc ti on ). As th e go ve rn m en t
po in ts ou t, the di st ric t cou rt op en ed th e se nt en ce-r ed uc ti on he ari ng by ex pl ai ni ng it

se t th e he ari ng an d ap po in te d co un se l fo r Jo ne s “ aft er m ak in g a pr el im in ary fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt [wa]s el ig ib le fo r a red uc ti on ”—a po in t th e go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed

. The di st r ic t co ur t th en cl ari fie d “ [t]he is su e be fo re th e Co ur t

. . . [wa]s whe th er th e Co ur t s ho ul d e xe rci se it s di sc ret io n to red uc e [J on es ’s] se nt en ce in who le or i n p art

-3

-aft er co ns id eri ng t h e a p p l ic ab le fact or s un de r 18 Uni te d St at es Co de Sect io n

35 53 (a).”

In m ak in g th at de te rm in at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d it “ rev ie wed th e co ur t f i l e i n it s en ti ret y ” an d wou ld co ns id er al l it kn ew ab ou t Jo ne s an d hi s c a s e i n

an al y zi ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s. The di st ric t co ur t th e n r e c a l c u la te d th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge th at wou ld ap pl y —ab se nt th e up ward de pa rtu re to whi ch th e pa rti es ha d ag re ed—af te r a two -le ve l red uc ti on in Jo ne s’s ba se of fen se le ve l un de r Am en dm en t 78 2. Afte r he ari ng fro m th e pa rti es , th e di st ric t co ur t de ci de d it was “ no t
go in g t o mak e an y ad

jus tm en t in Mr. Jo ne s’s se nt en ce,” fin di ng “ th e ap pr op ria te

se nt en ce [wa]s s ti ll 23 5 m on th s.”

In a po st -h eari ng writ te n o rd er, t he di st ric t co ur t fu rth er ex pl ai ne d,

Afte r th or ou gh ly re v i e w i n g th e de fen da nt ’s fil e, th e pr ov is io ns an d

co m m en ta ry of USSG §1 B1 .10
, th e fact or s se t fo rth i n 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3( a), th e na tu re an d se rio us ne ss of th e da ng er to an y pe r s o n o r
co m m un it y th at m ay be po se d by a red uc ti on in th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im pr is on m en t an d th e de fen da nt ’s po st -s en te nc in g co nd uc t, th e c ou rt d e cl in ed to ex erci se it s di sc ret io n un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) a n d USSG § 1B 1.1 0.

On th is reco rd
, we are sa ti sf ie d th e di st ric t co ur t un de rs to od th e pl ea ag reem en t

was no t bi nd in g an d Jo ne s was el ig ib le fo r a di sc ret io na ry se nt en ce red uc ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 ( c ) ( 2)

. And we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de ci di ng th e pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of Jo ne s’s cas e di d no t warra nt a red uc ti on

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-