1

09-4086

- cr U
. S. v. Pri ce UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

## SU MMAR

Y O RD ER
Ru li ng s b y s um mar

y o rd er d o n otha

ve p rec ed en ti al

ef fe ct. Ci tat io n t o s um mar y o rd ers file d o n o r af

ter Ja nu ary 1, 200 7, is pe rmi tte d a nd is go ver ne d b y F ed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll ate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citin g a summary order in a document filed with this cou rt, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Un ited States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street , in the City of New York, on the thirtieth day of Augu st, two thousand and ten. PRESENT: R OGER J. M I NER , J OSÉ A. C AB RANES , C HEST ER J. S TR AUB ,

Circuit Judges

.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x U NI T ED S TATES OF A MERI CA ,

Appellee ,
-v.- No. 09-4086- cr R O BERT P RI CE , als o kno wnas Ba m, al so kn own a s G us ,

Defendant-Ap

pellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x FO R D EF END AN TS- AP PE LL AN T: R

ANDALL U NGER (E liz ab eth E . Ma ce do ni o, onth e b rie f) , Bayside, NY. FO R APP EL LE E: J AM ES L OO NAM , Assistant United St ates At torney (B en to n J . C am pb ell, U ni te d S ta te s A tt or ne y, on th e b ri ef ; Be rit W. Be rge r, E mily

Be rge r, a ndDa ni el

Sil ve r, Assistant United St ates At torneys , of counsel ), United State s At to rn ey ’s Of

fic e f or th e E as te rnDi stric t o f N ew Yo rk, Br oo kly n, NY
.Price was charged with four count s, and convicted of three counts, in a twe nty-one count 1 indictment against thirteen individuals who were alleged t o be a part of a narcotic s trafficking organization that sold large quantitie s of cocaine base and he roin in the Gowanus public housing de ve lo pm en t i n B ro ok

ly n, New Y or k. 2 Appeal from a Septem ber 25, 2009 amended judgment of the United Stat es District Court for th e E as te rnDi stric t o f N ew Yo rk ( Ni ch ol as G. Ga ra ufi s, Ju dg e ).
UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , I T I S H ERE BY ORDE RED , A

DJ UD GED , A

ND DE CREED that the judgment of the District Court be AF FI RM ED
. De fe nd an t- ap pe lla nt

Ro be rt Pri ce ap pe al s fr om anam en de d j ud gm en t o f the Di stric t C ou rt en te re d o n S ep te mb er

25, 200 9, d enyi ng his re qu es t f or re se nt en ci ng p ur su an t t o 1 8 U. S.C . § 358 2( c) (2). Onap pe al , Pr

ic e c on te nd s tha t the Di stric t C ou rt ’s re fus al to re du ce a p re vio us ly

im po se d s en te nc e i n light of a retroactive amendm ent to the Sentencing Guidelines resulte d in a sentence that was pr oc ed ur ally

an d s ub st an ti

ve ly un re as on ab le

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, but a brief review is appropriate. On May 20, 2005 the District Court sentenc ed Price principally to two concurrent te rms of life imprisonment for conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to di strib ut e f

ift y gra ms or

mo re of c oc ai ne ba se an d o ne kil ogr am of m or e o f he ro ininvio la ti onof 2 1 U.S .C . § § 8 46 a nd841 (b )( 1) (A ) ( co un t o ne

) a ndpo ss es si ng w

ith i nt en t t o dis tr

ib ut e h er oi n i n v

io la ti onof 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)( C) (count t wenty-one)

. Price filed a timely appeal. In an

1 unpublished decision, we affirmed the judgment of the District Court but

remanded Price’s case for re se nt en ci ng o n c ou nt

tw en ty -on e b ec au se § 8 41( b) (1 )( C) im po se s ast atut ory m ax im um te rm of 2 0 ye ar s’ im pr

is on me nt . United States v. Pr ice , 20 4 F. Ap p’ x 99 3 (

2dCi r. 2 006 ).
Betwee n the District Court ’s two judgments of conviction, the Sentencing Commission amende d the Guidelines tw

ice: once to re duce the ba se offense level associate d with cocaine base, U.S.S.G. Supp. Ap p. C, Am dt . 70 6 ( ef

fe ct ive No v. 1 , 20 07) , a nda s ec on d t im e t o m ak e tha t a me nd me nt re tr oa ct ive , U.S .S. G. Su pp . A pp . C , A md t. 713 (e ffe ct ive Ma r. 3 , 20 08)

. Se e g

en er al ly Un it ed St at es v. D ill on , 130 S. Ct. 268 3, 2 688 (2 010). At

Pri ce ’s se co ndse nt en ci ng h ea ring, h e a sk edth e D is tr ic t C ou rt to re du ce hi s se nt en ce for

co un t o ne pu rs ua nt

to 18 U .S. C. § 3 582 (c

)( 2) , whi chpe rm it s r ed uc ti on s “i n the ca se of a defendant who has be en sentenc ed to a te rm of imprisonment based on a sent encing range that has subsequently be en lowered by the Sentenc ing Commission.” Pr ice’s motion was de nied. On Septembe r 25, 2009, the District Court entered a n amended judgment of convict ion, sentencing Price principally to life imprisonment on count one and t o twenty -years, the statutory maximum, on count t wenty-one, t o ru n c on cu rre nt

ly . Pr ic e againfil eda t

im ely a pp eal.3

We re view a

di stric t c ou rt ’s de ni al

of a mo ti onto re du ce a s en te nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U. S.C

. § 3 582 (c )( 2) for “a bu se of dis cr et

io n. ” United States v. Borden , 564 F.3d 1 00, 104 (2d Cir. 2 009); cf . S im s v. Blo t , 534 F.3d 1 17, 132 (2d Cir. 2 008) (“A district court has a bused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous asse ssment of the e vidence, or rendered a decision that c annot be locat ed within the range of permissible de cisions.” (alteration, citat ions, and quotation marks omitte d)). Excluding the quantit y of cocaine base , the quantity of heroin alone for which Price was convict ed on count one is sufficient t o justify a life sentence . As a result, because applying the retroact

ive amendment

to the Guidelines doe s not result in a lower base offense level, we agre e w ith the Di stric t C ou rt

th at Pri ce is no t e lig

ib le for a s en te nc e r ed uc ti onun de r 18 U.S .C . § 3582(c)(2). Finally, Price contends on appeal tha t U.S.S.G. § 1B.1.10, which instructs fede ral courts not to “reduce the de fendant’s term of imprisonment unde r 18 U.S.C. 3 582(c)(2)” below “the minimum of the amended guideline range,” is unconstitutional. He is incorrec t. The Supreme Court has c oncluded that § 1 B. 1.1 0’s bi ndin g re quire me nt s o n s en te nc in g judge s d o n ot ru n a foul o f the Six thAm en dm en t. See Un it ed St at es v. D ill on , 13 0 S. Ct . 26 83, 268 7 (

201 0) ; see also Unite d States v. Mock , — F.3 d — , N o. 09- 415 4- cr, 2010 WL 280 2553, at *3 (2d Cir. July 19, 201 0). We therefore ca nnot say that Price’s amended se nt en ce , whi chwa s w

ithi n the am en de d G ui de lin es ra nge , w as pr oc ed ur ally or su bs ta nt ive ly un re as on ab le

.

CONCLUSION We have considered e ach of Price’s arguments on appeal and find themto be without merit. For the reasons sta ted above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the D istrict Court. FOR THE COURT, Ca th er in e O ’H ag anWo lfe , C le rk o f Co ur t