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 10-9-2009 

# U SA v . R in aldo D iehl 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 . 09-1387

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 . R in aldo Diehl " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 468. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/468NOT 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. 09- 1387

___________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v . RI NAL DO DI E HL al s o know n as G abe

R in a ld o D ieh l, 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 D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 01- 00373- 011) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

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

O ct ober7, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober9, 2009 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM R i nal do D i ehl , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct2

C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eydeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r educe hi s s ent ence under18 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. In O ctob er 2 0 0 1 , D iehl p lead ed g u il tyto p o sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te m o re than 5 g ram s of co cai ne b ase. S ee 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a) (1) and (b) (1) (B ). D i ehl’ s base o f f e n se lev e l (B O L ) w a s 3 1 , af ter th e c o u rt a p p lied a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re o f th re e p o in ts for acceptance of

res po nsi bil i ty . B ecause D i ehl had t hree pri or drug felonycon vict i on s, the ca r eeroffe nderG ui del i nes , U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, appl i ed and he w as as s i gned a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I . T he combi ned B O L / C r i m i nal H i s t orys cor e r es ul t ed i n a G u idelines ran g e o f 1 8 8 to 2 3 5 m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t. D iehl m o v ed fo r a d o w n w ard departur e, ar gui ng thatthe ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ement s dr amat i cal l yover - r epr es ent ed h is p ri o r c ri m in a l b a c k g ro u n d o f d ru g c o n v ic tio n s in v o lv in g s m a ll a m o u n ts o f c o c a in e . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o departfr om the gui del i nes , and on M ay29, 2002, i m pos ed a pr i s on s ent ence of 188 m onths . W e af fi r m ed hi s s ent ence on di r ectappea l . See U ni t ed S tat es v . D iehl, 6 5 F ed . A p p x . 8 3 9 (3d C ir . M ay8 , 2 0 0 3 ). I n 2008, D i ehl fi l ed a pr o s e mot i on under18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) fora s ent ence re d u c tio n , b a se d o n A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 to th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, w h ich g e n e ra lly r educe d bytw o l evel s the bas e off ens e l evel forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es . T he D i s tr i ct C our tdeni ed the mot i on, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes i s de3

n o v o . S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S a n c h e z , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 2 7 5 , 2 7 7 - 7 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) . We r e v i e w a court ’ s ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of a de fenda nt ’ s m ot i on t o r educe s ent ence under § 3582( c) ( 2) forabus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. M at eo, 560 F. 3d 152, 154 & n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A D istric t C o u rt m a yre d u c e a ter m o f im p riso n m e n t u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) “ o n ly w h en tw o elem en ts are sa ti sfied : First , the d ef en d an t m u st ha v e b ee n ‘sen tenc ed to a term of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed byt he S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n ;’ a n d se c o n d , the se n ten c e re d u c tio n m u st b e ‘c o n sis ten t w ith 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. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. D oe, 564 F. 3d 305, 309 ( 3d C i r . 2009 ( quot i ng § 3582( c) ( 2) ) . T he appl i cabl e pol i cy s t at ementpr ovi des thata s ent ence r educt i on i s notauthor i zed i f the r etr oact i ve amendm ent“does nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the def endant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) . I n thi s r egar d, “the pol i cys t at ementand § 3582( c) ( 2) a re c o m p le m e n ta ry.” D o e , 5 6 4 F .3 d a t 3 1 0 . In M a teo , w e h e ld th a t th e c ra c k c o c a in e a m e n d m e n t w ill n o t lo w e r th e a p p lica b le G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange unde rU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( b) forcar eeroffe nder s . M at eo, 560 F. 3d at154- 55. T hi s i s beca us e “A m endment706 onl yaff ect s cal cul at i on under § 2D 1. 1( c) , and the l ow er i ng of the bas e off ens e l evel under§ 2D 1. 1( c) has no eff ecton th e a p p lic a tio n o f

th e c a re e r o f

f e n d e r o f f e n s e le v e l r e q u ir e d b y§ 4 B 1 .1 .” Id . a t 1 5 5 . B eca us e D i ehl w as s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe nder , the cr ack c ocai ne amendm entdoes not4

a f f e c t h is a p p lica b le s e n ten c in g ra n g e . T h e re f o re , h e m a yn o t o b tain a re d u c tio n in h is s ent ence pur s uantt o § 3582( c) ( 2) , and the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng hi s m ot i on to red u ce h is sen tenc e. W e a lso rejec t D iehl’s arg u m en ts th at U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and K i m br ough v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 558 ( 2007) , r equi r e a differ ent r esul t . N ei ther case provi des a ba si s for a r edu ct i on of sen t ence n ot otherw i se al l ow abl e under§ 3582( c) . See M at eo, 560 F. 3d at155, 156. 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.