T h e H o n o rab le W il li am K
. S essio n s III, C h ief Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt * forthe D i s tr i ctof V erm ont , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. 09-3388 -cr Unite d State s v . Thomas 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 UM M ARY O R 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 . C I T A T I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D O N O R AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY 8 FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. W H EN 9 C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER IN A D O C U M E N T FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T RONI 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 O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON 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 ourtof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i tyof N ew 1 6 Y ork, on the 9 dayof Sept ember , tw o thous and t en. th 17 1 8 P RE S E NT : J OS E P H M
. M c L AUGHL I N, 1 9 G E R A R D E . L Y N C H , C i r cui tJudges , 20 2 1 W IL L IA M K
. S E S S IO N S III , 22 D is tr i ct Judge. * 23

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24 25 2 6 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel lee , 27 28 v. N o. 09- 3388- cr 29 30 R O B E R T T H O M A S, al s o know n as B r ookl yn, 31 D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t. 32 33 34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 35 3 6 F O R A P P E L L A N T : W ill iam T . K o c h , Jr., L ym e , C o n n e c ticu t. 37 3 8 FO R A PPELL EE: Pa tr i c k F. Carus o, A s s i s t a ntU ni t e d St a t e s A tt orne y( Sa nd r a S. 3 9 G lo v e r, of couns el), f

orD avi d B
. Fei n, U ni t ed St at es A tt orney 4 0 f o r th e D is tr ic t o f

C o n n e c tic u t, N e w H a v e n , C o n n e c tic u t. 41 4 2 Ap p e a l f r o m th e Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s tr i c tCo u rtf o rth e Di s tr i c to f

Co n n e c t i c u t( J a n e tC. 4 3 H a ll, Judge ).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 rtis A F F IR M E D
. 3 A ppel l antT hom as , w ho w as s ent ence d t o 180 m onths i n pr i s on as a ca r eeroffe nder 4 fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on fordi s tr i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne, m oved fora r educt i on i n s ent ence 5 pur s uantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582( c) ( 2)
. T he di s tr i ctcourtdecl i ned t o gr antthe r educt i on, and 6 d e n ied T h o m a s’s f u rth e r re q u e st f

o r a “ f u ll re se n ten c in g ,” a t w h ich h e so u g h t to re v isit h is 7 d esig n ati o n as a ca ree r of fe n d er. 8 T homa s d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s c r e t i o n a ryd e n i a l o f a s e n t ence 9 r educt i on. H e does , how ever , appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng thatU
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10( b) ( 1) 1 0 p re c lu d e s a p len a ryre se n ten c in g u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). T h o m a s’s b rie f e ss e n tially 1 1 conce ded that th e d istri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng w as corr ectunderourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. 1 2 S a v o y , 5 6 7 F
. 3 d 7 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , b u ta r g u e d th a tS a v o ymi g h tb e o v e rru l e d b y th e S u p r e me 1 3 C o u rtin a th en -pe n d ing ca se, D il lon v . U n it ed S tat es, 13 0 S
. C t. 2 6 8 3 (20 1 0 ). 1 4 A ft erthe i ns t ant cas e w as ful l y br i efe d, how ever , the S upr eme C ourt deci ded D i l l on, 1 5 and agr eed w i th ourconcl us i on i n Savoy
. D i l l on, 130 S. C t
. at2693. W e have s i nce appl i ed 1 6 the rul e of D i l l on t o a cl ai m es s ent i al l y i dent i cal t o T hom as ’ s . See U ni t ed St at es v. M ock, 1 7 6 1 2 F .3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 4 -3 5 (2 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). A s D ill o n a n d M o c k a re d isp o sitiv e o f T h o m a s’s so le 1 8 a r g u me n to n ap p e a l , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED
. 19 2 0 FOR TH E CO UR T: 2 1 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 22 23