09-1874 -cr

Unite d State s v . Darco 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 S UM M ARY OR DER 5 6 R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . CI T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY 8 FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. W H EN 9 C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E D E RAL A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T O N ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew 1 6 Y or k, on the 14 dayof M ay , tw o t hous and ni ne. th 17 1 8 P R E S E N T : J O N O . N E W M A N , 1 9 J O H N M . W A L K E R , J R .,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, 20 21 C i r cui tJudges
. 22

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 2 4 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , 25 v. N o. 09- 1874- cr 26 27 J OHN DA RC O, 28 D ef endant

-Appel lant , 29 30 3 1 A L B E R T P A N E Q U E , 32 D e fen da n t. 33 34
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 3 5 A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : B
. A l an Sei dl er , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. 36 3 7 A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L E E : M i chae l Y aeger, A ssist an t U n it ed S tat es 3 8 A t t orney , ( E m i l y B er ger , A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es 3 9 A tto rn e y , o n th e b rie f ) f o r B e n to n C a m p b e ll, 4 0 U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof 4 1 N ew Y or k. 4 2 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istric t o f N ew Y o rk 4 3 (C h arles P
. S ift o n , Ju d g e).1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e )(1 ) p ro v id e s: 1 In th e c a se o f a p e rso n w h o v io late s s e c tio n 9 2 2 (g ) o f th is titl e a n d h a s th re e p re v io u s c o n v ictio n s b ya n yc o u rt re f e rre d to in s e c tio n 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) o f

th is title f

o r a v io le n t f

e lo n y. . . comm i t t ed on occ as i ons di ffe r entfr om one another , s uch per s on s hal l be .
. . i m pr i s oned notl es s than fi ft een y ear s , and, notw i ths t andi ng anyotherpr ovi s i on of l aw , the courts hal l not s us pend the s ent ence of, orgr anta pr obat i onarys ent ence t o, s uch per s on w i th r es pectt o the convi ct i on unders ect i on 9 2 2 (g). 2 1 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND 2 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D
. 3 In 2 0 0 0 , a ju ryc o n v icte d Jo h n D a rc o o f th r e e c o u n ts o f

a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ryin 4 v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C
. § § 2 1 1 3 (a ) a n d (d ), co n sp ira c yto c o m m it arm e d b a n k ro b b e ryin 5 vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 371, us e of a fi r earm dur i ng a cr i m e of vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of 18 6 U. S
. C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) , p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m b ya c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S
. C. 7 §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) ; and pr i s on es cape i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 751( a)
. I n 2001, 8 the d istri ct c o u rt sen tenc ed h im to 3 4 6 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. In 2 0 0 8 , D arc o m o v ed fo r a 9 s ent ence r educt i on pur s uantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c)( 2) , and the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed that 1 0 m o tio n . D a rc o a p p e a ls th a t d e n ia l. 11 I . A rm ed C aree r C ri m i nal D et erm i nat i on 1 2 A t se n ten c in g , the d istric t co u rt f o u n d D a r c o to b e a n a rm e d c a re e r c rim in a l w ith in 1 3 th e m e a n in g o f th e A rm e d C a re e r C rim in a l A c t, 1 8 U .S .C . 9 2 4 (e ), b e c a u se h e h a d p re v io u sly 1 4 been c onvi ct ed of thr ee ba nk r obber i es . T he cour t ther efor e appl i ed t he provi s i ons of U ni t ed 1S e c tio n 4 B 1 .4 p ro v id e s: 2 ( a) A defe ndantw ho i s s ubj ectt o an enha nced s ent ence under

the pr ovi s i ons of 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( e) i s an arm ed ca r eer c rim in a l. ( b) T he off

ens e l evel foran arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal i s the g re a te s t o f: . . . . ( 3) ( A ) 34, i f the def

endantus ed orpos s es s ed the fi r earm or a m m u n itio n in c o n n e c tio n w ith . . . a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . . . . ( c) T he cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryforan arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal is
. . . . ( 2) C at egoryV I , i f the def endantus ed orpos s es s ed the fi r earm oramm uni t i on i n connec t i on w i th .
. . a cr i m e of v io le n c e . . . . I n i t s A pr i l 21, 2009 M emora ndum and O r der , the di s tr i ctcourti ncorr ect l ys t at ed that 3 D ar co’ s C H C w as enhanc ed t o l evel I V
. I n fac t , ats ent ence , the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed that D a rc o ’s C H C w a s V I. 3 1 St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U
. S. S. G
. ”) Sect i on 4B 1. 4, ther ebyi ncr eas i ng hi s cr i m i nal 2 2 hi s t orycat egory( “C H C ”) fr om I II t o V I and hi s offe ns e l evel fr om 32 t o 34, y i el di ng a 3 3 G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 2 6 2 to 3 6 7 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. 4 D ar co appe al ed hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng thathe s houl d notbe cons i de r e da n arm ed ca r eer 5 cr i m i nal beca us e hi s thr ee pr i orr obberyconvi ct i ons had come in a s i ngl e ca s e, bas ed on a 6 s i ngl e s er i es of tr ans act i ons that l ed t o a s i ngl e conc urr ents ent ence . I n 2002, w e r ej ect ed that 7 ar gum entbas ed on ourpr i orhol di ng i n U ni ted Stat es v. R i deout , 3 F
. 3 d 3 2 , 3 5 (2d C ir
. 8 1 9 9 3 ). See U

ni t ed Stat es v. P aneque , 6 0 F
. A p p ’x. 33 9 , 3 4 2 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 9 Sever al y ear s ther eaf t er , D ar co sought a s ent ence r educt i on under§ 3582( c) ( 2)
. T hat 1 0 se c tio n p ro v id e s: 11 1 2 T he courtm aynotm odi fya t erm o f im p ri s onm entonce i thas 1 3 been i m pos ed exc ept that
. . . i n the ca s e of a defe ndantw ho hasA m end m ent 709 p rovi des: 4 I f the def endanthas m ul t i pl e pr i ors ent ence s , det erm i ne w h e th e r th o se se n ten c e s a re c o u n ted se p a ra telyo r a s a sin g le s ent ence . Pr i ors ent ence s al w ay s ar e count ed s epar at el yi f the s ent ence s w er e i m pos ed foroffe ns es thatw er e s epar at ed by a n in ter v e n in g a rre st . . . . If th e re is n o in ter v e n in g a rre st, pr i ors ent ence s ar e count ed s epar at el yunl es s ( A ) the s e n t e n c e s r e s u l t e d f

r o m o f f e n s e s c o n t a i n e d i n th e s a me char gi ng i ns trum ent ; or( B ) the s ent ence s w er e i m pos ed on th e s a me d a y . Co u n ta n yp r i o rs e n t e n c e c o v e r e d b y( A) o r( B) as a s i ngl e s ent ence . 4 1 been s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng 2 r ange thathas s ubs equ en t l ybeen l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng 3 C om m i s s i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. 994( o)
. . . the courtm ay 4 re d u c e th e ter m o f im p riso n m e n t . . . if s u c h a re d u c tio n is 5 cons i s t e n twi th a p p l i c a b l e p o l i c ys t a t e me n t s i s s u e d b ythe 6 Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. 7 8 D ar co base s hi s ar gum ent on the 2007 A m endment 709 t o U
. S. S. G
. Sect i on 4A 1. 2. 9 Sect i on 4A 1. 2 i ns truct s court s how t o co u n t m u lt i pl e pr i ors ent ence s w hen comput i ng a 1 0 defe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , and A m endment709 al t er ed the w ay pas t offe ns es ar e count ed 1 1 forthatpurpos e. D a rc o a rg u e s tha t A m e n d m e n t 7 0 9 c o m p e ls th e d istric t co u rt to c o u n t h is 4 1 2 p rio r c o n v ictio n s a s o n e o f f e n se ra th e r th a n th re e w h e n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r to se n ten c e h im 1 3 as an arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal
. I f the court had count ed thos e convi ct i ons as one off ens e, D ar co 1 4 w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n c o n sid e re d a n a rm e d c a re e r c rim in a l. 1 5 B u t D a rc o ’s a rg u m e n t m iss e s th e m a rk . A m e n d m e n t 7 0 9 c h a n g e d h o w m u lti p le 1 6 co n v ict ion s are co u n ted o n lyfo r th e p u rpo se o f c alcu lat ing a d ef en d an t’ s c rim inal h ist o ry 1 7 p o ints un d er U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4 A 1
. 2
. B u t § 4 A 1
. 2 d o es n o t bea r on the c alcu lat ion o f D arc o ’s 1 8 s ent ence . D ar co’ s s ent ence w as enhanc ed under 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( e) and U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 4,5 1 w h ic h a re e n tir e ly s e p a ra te f ro m U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2
. Cf
. U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 4 cmt n. 1 ( not i ng t hat 2 the t i m e per i ods forthe count i ng of pr i or s ent ence s under§ 4A 1. 2 do notappl yt o “the 3 d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f wh e th e ra d e f

e n d a n t i s s ubj e c tt o a n e n h a n c e d s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. 4 § 924( e)
. ”)
. A m endment 709 di d notchange how m ul t i pl e convi ct i ons ar e count ed fort he 5 purpos e of thes e provi s i ons . A change i n a G ui del i ne governi ng how convi ct i ons ar e count ed 6 forpurpos es of the cr i m i nal hi s t ory s cor e does not s uper s ede t hi s court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a 7 s epar at e s t atut e thathas i t s ow n appr oach t o count i ng pr i orconvi ct i ons , w hi ch r emai ns good 8 law an d is th e law o f th is case
. A m en d m en t 70 9 sp ea k s o n ly to the ca lculati o n o f D arc o ’s 9 cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s underU
. S. S. G
. § 4 A 1
. 2 , and i tdoes notl ow erthe s ent enci ng 1 0 G ui del i ne r ange c al cul at ed for D ar co purs uant t o 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( e) and U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 4. 1 1 I n anyevent , even i f A m endment7 0 9 d id per t ai n t o D ar co’ s s ent enci ng G ui del i ne 1 2 r ange, thatamendm entcannots erve as the bas i s o f a § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on beca us e the 1 3 Sent enci ng G ui del i nes do nots peci fythatthe amendm entappl i es r etr oact i v ely
. Sect i on 1 4 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) a u th o r iz e s s e n ten c e re d u c tio n s o n lyto th e e x ten t “c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le 1 5 pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued by the S ent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” T he appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement 1 6 s peci fi es thos e amendm ent s that appl yr etr oact i vel yt o perm i ts uch r educt i ons ; A m endment 1 7 7 0 9 is n o t o n th e lis t. U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a ), ( c ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C aceda , 990 F. 2d 707, 1 8 710 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ( “O nl ycert ai n enumer at ed amendm ent s ar e s peci fi ed bythe G ui del i nes 1 9 as exce pt i ons t o the gen era l ru le thatamendm ent s ar e nott o be appl i ed r etr oact i vel yeven 2 0 though appel l at e r evi ew has notbeen c oncl uded.
. . . [T ]he p erti n entamendm enti s not6 1 a m o n g th o se e x p licitlysta ted to b e re tro a c tiv e b yth e S e n ten c in g C o m m is s io n , an d sh o u ld 2 n o t be a p p li ed retroac ti v ely
. ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). 3 I I . C ons e c ut i ve M anda t or y M i ni m um Se nt e nc e I s s ue 4 D ar co’ s convi ct i on under 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) carr i ed a mandat orys even- y ear 5 sen tenc e b e c au se D arc o b ran d ishe d a g u n in the co u rse o f th e ro b b ery . T h e d istri ct co u rt 6 i m pos ed thats ent ence t o run cons ecut i vel yt o hi s s ent ence o n the § 922( g) count , w hi ch 7 ca ll ed fo r a m an d atorym inim u m o f f ift ee n y ea rs. D arc o arg u es th at his § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A ) 8 se n ten c e is “ i l l egal” because i tw as contr aryt o U ni t ed Stat es v. W

hi t l ey , 529 F. 3d 150 ( 2d 9 C i r . 2008) , and Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 558 F. 3d 166 ( 2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ), w hi ch hol d t hat a 1 0 di s tr i ctcourtm aynoti m pos e a c ons ecut i ve m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence fora § 924( c) 1 1 vi ol a t i o n i f

t h e c o u r ti mpo s e s a l o n g e rma n d a t o rymi n i mum s e n t e n c e o n a n o th e rc o u n tof 1 2 convi ct i on. 1 3 W e decl i ne t o r evi ew thi s ar gum ent . Fi r s t , D ar co fa i l ed t o r ai s e thi s ar gum enti n t he 1 4 dis tri ctcou rt . S econ d, D arco’ s sentence reducti on m oti on un der § 35 82 (c) (2) authori zes a 1 5 c o u rt to m o d if

y h is se n ten c e o n ly if it w a s “ b a se d o n a se n ten c in g ra n g e th a t h a s s u b se q u e n tly 1 6 b e e n lo w e re d b y th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 9 9 4 (o ).” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 7 3582( c) ( 2)
. Si nce thi s ar gum entdoes noti m pl i cat e anys entenc i ng r ange thathas 1 8 s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed, § 3582( c) ( 2) i s notthe pr opervehi cl e fori t . T o the ext entthat 1 9 D ar co cha l l enges the leg a lit y of the sent ence i m pos ed, the pr opervehi cl e fors uch a 2 0 c h a l l e n g e wo u l d b e a mo t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 5
. Ho we v e r , we e x p r e s s n o v i e ws7 1 as to w hether , on s uch a mot i on, the rul e of W hi t l ey and Wi l l i a ms wou l d b e a v a i l a b l e on 2 col l at er al att ack. 3 F o rth e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED
. 4 FOR TH E CO UR T: 5 C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt 6 7 8