NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0700n.06 No. 08-5666 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. ARTAVUS KEL L Y, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B EF ORE: MA RTI

N, RO GE RS, a

nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e . D e fe nd ant Art avu s K e lly a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t court ’s de nia l of his motion for a sentenc e re duction under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . Kelly pled guilty

to a cr ack c ocaine offe nse in 2004 pursuant to a written plea ag ree ment. Kelly alleg es t hat he is entit led to a sente nce reduc tion b e c a

u s e th e d is tr ic t c o urt r e li e d o nth e n o w - ame n d e d

c r a c k p r o v is io no f

th e Se n te n c ing Gu ide lin e s w he n it

de te rm ine d h is b a se of

fe ns e le ve l and ini tia l Guid e lin e ra ng e . H ow e ve r, be c a

us e Kelly ’s ultimate sentenc ing r ang e wa s based on the car eer offe nder pr ovision of the Guidelines, not the cr ack pr ovision, he is not entitl ed to a se ntence reduc tion. In 2004, Kelly

pled guilty

to possession with intent to distribute 50 g rams or more of c rac k
c oc a ine – his thir d dru g fe lony c onvic tio n –

purs ua nt t o a wr itt e n p le a

a g re e me nt. In th at a g re e me nt, Kelly acknow ledg ed that he was a care er offende r under the Guidelines. The Gover nment ag ree d not to file an enhance ment that would expose Kelly to a mandator

y life sentenc e, and the partiesNo. 08-5666

Un ite d S tates v . Ke lly

In th e ple a

a g re e me nt, the pa

rt ie s a g re e d to joi ntl y

re c omm e nd

a se ntence of 15 y e ars in 1 prison. Be cause Kelly

provided more assistance than the Gove rnment had a nticipated, the pa

rties later a g ree d to rec ommend a sente nce of 14 y ear s (168 months) in prison. - 2 - a g re e d to joi ntl y

re c omm e nd

a do wnwa rd dep artur e to a

fi na l se nte nc e of

16 8 mo nth s in

pr iso n if the Gover nment filed a substantial a ssistance motion. 1 The district cour

t relied on the Pre s en t en ce Report, prepa red usingthe 2003 edition of the Guidelines, in deter

mining Ke lly ’s Guideline se ntencingrang e. Ke lly ’s base offe nse l evel was 34 due to the amount of c ocaine base involved in the offe nse. Be cause Kelly was ove r 18 and ha d two p r e vious felony

drugconvictions, he wa s a ca ree r off ender under the Guidelines, yielding a n adjusted offe nse leve l of 37 and a criminal history cate g ory of VI
. Kelly rec eived a

three -leve l reduc tion for
acc eptanc e of r esponsibility , result i n g i n a total offe nse leve l of 34. Kelly ’s ultimate Guideline sentenc ing rang e was 262 to 327 months. The Gover nment moved for a

downwar d depar

ture ba sed
on Ke lly ’s su

bs tanti a l ass ist anc e , an d the dis tr ic t court g ra nte d th at mo tio n a

nd se nte nc e d K e lly

to 168 months in prison. Whil e Ke lly

wa s in pr iso n, the Se nte nc ing Commis sio n a do pte d a re tr oa c tiv e ame ndme nt,
e ff e c tiv e No ve mbe r 1 , 2 00 7, tha t r e du c e d th e ba se of

fe ns e le ve ls f

or un lawf ul p os se ssi on

of mos t
cra ck coc aine quan t i t i es . Ke lly then moved to re duce his sente nce unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2). The district cour

t denied Ke lly ’s motion, finding that “[t] he chang e to the crack se ntencingg uideline does not make [Kelly ] eligible for a lower sentenc e bec ause his orig inal sentenc ing r ang e wa s based
on the se nte nc ingg uid e lin e fo r c are e r o ff e nd e rs , rathe r tha

n th e c ra c k s e nte nc ingg uid e lin e .” Ke lly now appe als.No. 08-5666

Un ite d S tates v . Ke lly

- 3 - Kelly is not eligible for

a sente nce r eduction bec ause his applica ble sentenc ing r ang e wa s based on the caree r offender provision of t he Guidelines, not the crac k provision. A district court may g rant a sentenc e re duction only i f t h e “d ef

en d an t . . . has bee n sentenc ed to a ter m of imprisonment based on a se ntencingrange that has subseque ntly been lowe red by

the Sentencing Commi ssion . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2). A cra ck coc aine de fenda nt whose ultimate sentenc ing rang e is based on the car eer offe nder provision of the g uidelines is not elig ible for a reduc ed sente nce
un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) be c a us e , b y its te rm s, § 3 58 2( c )( 2) on ly a pp lie s to def

e nd ants wh os e ultimate sentencingrang e is subsequently lowere d. United States v. Pe rdue , 5 72 F .3 d 2 88 , 2 93 (6 th Cir. 2009). Be cause Kelly ’s sentenc ing rang e was based in the e nd on the ca ree r off ender provision of the Guide lines, not the cra ck coc aine pr ovision, the a mendment did not lowe r Ke lly ’s sentenc ing rang e and K elly

is not eligible for

a sente nce r eduction. Ac cording ly , the judg ment of the district court is af firmed.