### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20235 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. A D R IA N L E W IS C A R T E R , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n dS M IT H a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: A d r ia n L e w is C a r te ra p p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is m o t i o n to re d u c e h is sentence i n res pon se t o a recent chan ge t o t h e federalsentenci n g gu i del i n es f or c r i m e s i nvolvi ng c r ac k c o c ai ne . Bec aus e Car t e r ’ s s e nt e nc e w as b as e d o n a m i n i m u m p r e s c r ib e d b ys t a t u t e , w e A F F I R M. I . B ackgr oun d and P r oce edi ngs In Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , C a rter p l ea d ed gu i l ty to ( 1 ) p o s s ess i on , w i th i n ten t t o di st ribu t e, of

50 gram s or m ore of a m i xture contai n i n g cocai n e base (i . e. cr ack cocai n e) , i n vi ol ati on of 21 U . S . C . § 841(a) ( 1) an d (b) ( 1) (A) (i i i) , an d ( 2) possess i on o f a f i r e a r m i n f

u r t h e r a n c e o f

a d r u g - t r a f

f i c k i n gc r i m e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 24 (c ) ( 1) (A) . The di s t r i c tc o ur ts e nt e nc e d Car t e rt o 9 6 m o nt hs o f i m pr i s o nm e nt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 28, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

Carter does not di spute this calculationor the district court’s determinationth at his 1 crime made the statutoryminimum sente nce applicab le. 2 for t h ese offe n s es, i n cl u d i n g 3 6 m on th s f or th e p oss ess i on w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te cou n t, an d 60 m on th s f or th e fi rea rm s cou n t. O nl y t he c al c ul at i o n o f t he po s s e s s i o n c o unti s pr e s e nt l y ati s s ue . The di st ri ctcourt ad m on i shed C art er at t h e t i m e of h i s pl ea t h at h e faced a s t atutor y m in im u m p e n a ltyo f 1 2 0 m o n th s ’im p r is o n m e n t fo rt h is co u n t. S ee 2 1 U .S .C . § 84 1(b) ( 1) (A) . Thi s s t at ut o r y m i ni m um w as g r e at e rt han t he hi gh e nd o f t he sentenci n g gu i del i n e rang e of 87 to 108 m on t h s c al cul ated i n t h e P resentence R e p o r t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e 1 2 0 -m o n th s ta tu to r ym in im u m b e c a m e t h e a p p lic a b le

1 “gu i d eli n e se n ten ce.” S ee U . S . S . G . § 5G 1. 1(b) ( “W h ere a s t atutor i l y requ i red m i ni m um s e nt e nc e i s g r e at e rt han t he m ax i m um of the app l i c ab l e g ui de l i ne r an g e , t h e s t a t u t o r i l yr e q u i r e dmi n i m u m s e n t e n c e s h a l lb e t h e g u i d e l i ne sentence. ” ) . P ri or t o sentenci n g, t h e govern m en tf i l ed a m ot i on f

or a dow n w ard d e p a r t u r e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (e ) a n dU .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 . 1 , b a s e do n C a r t e r ’s s ubs t ant i ala s s i s t anc e . As i tw as pe r m i t t e d t o do, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d t he m ot i on , sentenci n g C art er t o 36 m on t h s rat h er t h an t h e l on ger t erm s cal l ed f or b yt h e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e a n d s t a t u t o r ymi n i mu m. E f fect ive N ovem ber 1, 200 7, t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on am en ded t h e sentenci n g gu i del i n es app l i cabl e t o cr ack cocai n e of fen ses, in c lu d in g th e o ffe n s e n o w a t is s u e . S eeU . S. S. G . app. C , am end. 706, at226–31 ( S u p p . 2008) ( am endi ng U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1(c ) ) ; U . S. S. G . app. C , am end. 713, at 2 5 3 (S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( m a k in gA m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 re tr o a c tiv e lya p p lic a b le ). It is undi s put e d t hat i f t he t e r m s o f t hi s am e ndm e nt had ap pl i e d, Car t er’ s base offen se leve lw ou l d h a ve be en l ow er, a n d a c c ord i n gly, th e 8 7 to 10 8 m on th g u id e lin e ra n g e w o u ld h a v e b e e n lo w e ra s w e ll. In A pri l2 0 0 8 , C art er f i l ed a m ot i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 3582 (c) ( 2) f or a r e d u c tio n o f s e n te n c e b a s e d o n A m e n d m e n ts 7 0 6 a n d7 1 3 . H e a r g u e dth a t h is Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

C art ernotesth at the di strictc ourtstate d that “th e defe n dant i s ineligib leas h e mu st 2 serve the m andatoryminimum,” when in fact Carter’s original se ntence wa s wellbelow the statutoryminimum. He thereforeasks for re mand to provide the district courtwithan opportunityto clarify its ruling . Itseems clear enough to u s that the di strict court ruled that Carter is not entitled to a reduction bec ausehis sentenc e was base d ona statutoryminimum rather thanthe guideline range th at was sub sequ ently amen ded. 3 36
- m o nt h s e nt e nc e r e pr e s e nt e d a 59 pe r c e nt r e duc t i o n f r o m t he 87
- m o n t h l ow e nd o f t he Pr e s e nt en ce R e po r t ’ s g ui de l i ne c al c ul at i o n, t hata c o r r e c tg ui de l i ne r ang e i n l i ghtof

t he c r ac k c o c ai ne a m e ndm e nt s w o ul d b e 7 0 t o 8 7 m o nt hs , a nd t her ef or e t hatt he di st r i c tc our ts houl d r educ e t hi s por t i on of hi s se nt enc e t o 5 9 percent bel ow 70 m on t h s. T h i s w ou l d resul tin a sen t en ce of 2 9 m on t h s, rat h er th a n 36 , on the po sse ssion cou n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n o n th e g r o u n dth a t “ th e d e fe n d a n t is i n el i gibl e as he m u st serve t h e m an da t ory m i n i m u m , ” an d d en i ed a m ot i on f or r e c o ns i de r at i o n. Thi s a ppe alf o l l o w e d. II . A n a ly s is A s a general m att er, w e revi ew a deci si on w h et h er t o reduce a sentence u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Uni t e d St at e s v. Cool ey , — F . 3 d —, 200 9 W L 464 261 0, a t*1 ( 5th C i r. D ec. 9, 200 9) . H ow ever, w e revi ew t h e di st ri ct court’ s i n t erpret ati on of t h e gu i del i n es an d s en t en cin gstat u t es de no vo . I d. ; Uni t e d St at e s v . Salaz ar , 542 F . 3d 139 , 144 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) . H ere t h e qu est i on i s w h et h er t h e di st ri ct c ou rtcor rect l y concl u ded t h at C art er i s i n el i gibl e f or a s e nt e nc e r e duc t i o n und e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) a nd U. S. S. G . § 1 B1. 10 , i n l i ght o f th e sta tu to rym in im u m se n te n ce im p o se db y2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1)(A). W e 2 c o n c lu d e th a t u n d e rth e s e p r o v is io n s , C a r te ris n o t e lig ib le fo rth e re d u c tio n . T i t l e 18 U . S . C . § 3582 (c) prohibi t s di st ri ctcourt s f rom “ m odi f

y[ i n g] a t erm of i m pri so nm enton ce i thas bee n i m pos ed, ” but§ 3582(c ) ( 2) pr ovi des an e x c e p t i o n f

o ra s e n t e n c e b a s e do n a s e n t e n c i n gr a n g e t h a tt h e S e n t e nc i ng C om m i ssi on subsequ en t l y l ow ers: Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

4 [ I] n t h e case of

a defen da n tw h o ha s been sen te n ced t o a t erm of im p r is o n m e n t b a s e d o n a s e n te n c in gra n g e th a t h a s s u b s e q u e n tly b e e n l o we r e d b y t h e S e n t e n c i n g Co m m i s s i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S . C. 994( o) , upon m ot i on of the def endantor t he D i r ec t orof the B ure au of P ri sons, or on i t s ow n m ot ion , t h e courtm ay redu ce t h e t erm of i m pri sonm en t , af

t er c on si deri n gth e fact ors setf ort h i n sec t i on 3 5 5 3 (a ) to th e e x te n t t h a t t h e ya r e a p p lic a b le , if s u c h a r e d u c tio n is c o ns i s t e ntw i t h a ppl i c ab l e po l i c y st at e m e nt s i s s ue d b y t he S e n te n c in gC o m m is s io n . T h e a p p lic a b le p o lic y s ta te m e n t is U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 . In C a r te r ’ s ca s e th e r e is no di sput e t hatt he appl i c abl e g ui del i ne r ange w as 87 t o 1 08 m ont hs, and t hat t h e cr ack co ca in e a m en dm en t s l ow ered t h at r an ge. Th e qu est i on i s w h et h er C art er’ s s en t en ce w as “based on” t h at r an ge f or purp oses of

t h e st atute. T h e F o u r th C ir c u it h a s co n s id e r e dt h i s q u e s tio n in co m p a r a b le ci rcum st an ces an d concl u ded that , w he n adefen da n t ’ s c ri m e t ri ggers a st atutor y m in im u m s e n te n c e e x c e e d in gh is g u id e lin e ra n g e , th e re s u l t i n gs e n te n c e is “b a s e d o n ” th e s ta tu to r y m in im u m , n o t th e g u id e lin e r a n g e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hood , 5 5 6 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 3 (4 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 3 2 1 (2 0 0 9 ). Hood con sid e re d th e se n te n ce s o f tw o d e fen d a n ts in re m a rk a b ly s im il a r c ircu m st an ces t o C art er. B ot h w ere sen t en ced f or c rack cocai n e t raf

f i cki n g based on m an da t ory m i n i m u m sentences u n der 21 U . S . C . § 841 (b) ( 1) (A) , bu t receive d d o w n w ard d e p a r tu r e s fo rs u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e to th e g o v e r n m e n t u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (e ). Id . a t 2 2 8 . T h e yla te rre q u e s te dp r o p o r tio n a t e r e d u c tio n s in th e ir se nt enc es t o r ef

l ec tt he i m pac tthe c r ac k c oc ai ne am endm ent s w oul d have had o n th e irg u id e lin e ra n g e ca lc u la tio n s . I d. T h e cou rt con cl u d ed tha t [ T] he de fe nda nt s ’s e nt en ces i n t he s e a ppe al s w e r e “ba s e d o n” t he s t at ut o r i l y m and at e d m i ni m um s e nt e nc e , no t“base d o n a se nt enc i ng r ange” l ow er ed byA m endm ent706, and w er e r educ ed by t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (e ) o n lyfo re a c h d e fe n d a n t ’s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t anc e t o t he go ve r nm e nt , no t be c aus e of t he appl i c at i on o f

any “ gui del i ne r ange” l ow er ed byA m endm ent706. Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

The rigidityof statutorysentencing rules stands inc on t r as tto the advisoryn ature 3 of guideline sentencing ranges under United States v. Booker , 5 4 3U .S . 2 2 0(2 0 0 5).

5 Id . The c o ur t ac c o r di ngly c o nc l ude d t he de fe nda nt s w e r e no t e nt i t l e d to a s e nt e nc e r e duc t i o n und e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) , and af f i r m e d t he de ni alo f

t he d e fe n d a n ts ’m o tio n s fo rs e n te n c e re d u c tio n . I d. at 23 7

– 3 8 . T w o oth er circu i ts h a v e r e a c h e d e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n u n d e r s im ila rcir c u m s ta n c e s . S ee Un i t ed S ta tes v. Byers , 5 6 1 F .3 d8 2 5 , 8 3 2 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Willia m s , 5 4 9 F .3 d 1 3 3 7 , 1 3 4 1

– 4 2 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e f i nd t he F o ur t h C i r c ui t ’ s anal ys i s per s uas ive as appl i e d t o Car t e r . The phras e “bas ed o n a s ent enc i ng r ange” s t r ai ght f or w ar dl y al i gns w i t h t he fam i l i ar s e nt e nc i ng pr ac t i c e o f i ni t i al l y c al c ul at i ng a ba s e r ang e a nd t he n c o ns i de r i ng gr ounds f

ordepar t i ng f

r om i t . I n co nt r as tt o t hatt ypi c als i t uat i on, w hen an ap pl i c ab l e s t at ut o r y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e i s g r e at e rt han t he hi gh e nd o f t he gu i del i n e ra nge, t h at m i n i m u m — n ott h e ot h erw i se app l i cabl e gu i del i n e rang e— is th e s ta r tin gp o in t fo rs e n te n c in g . S ee U . S . S . G . § 5G 1 .1(b) ( “W h ere a s t at ut o r i l y r e qui r e d m i ni m um s e nt e nc e i s g r e at e rt han t he m ax i m um o f t he appl i c abl e g ui del i ne r ange, t he s t at ut or i l y r equi r ed m i ni m um s ent enc e s hal lbe t h e gu i del i n e sentence. ” ) . Indeed , t h e di st ri ctcourtl acks au t h ori t y t o i m pose a se nt enc e b e l o w t hes t a t ut o r y m i ni m um abs enta st atut ory e xc e pt i o n. S ee Un i t ed 3 St at e s v . Phi l l i

ps , 382 F . 3 d 489, 499 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) ( “ [A ] di st r i c tc our tm ay i mp o s e a s e n t e n c e o f

i mp r i s o n me n tb e l o w a s t a t u t o r ymi n i mu m f o ra d r u gc r i me on l y i f: ( 1) t h e G overnm en tm ak es a m ot i on pu rsuan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3553 ( e) as s e r t i ng t he de fe nda nt ’ s s ubs t ant i ala s s i s t anc e t o t he G o ver n m en t ; o r( 2) t he d e fen d a n t m e e ts th e ‘ sa fety v a lve ’cr iter ia s e t fo rth in1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f) .”) . T h ere i s no di spu t e t h at C art er w as subjec tto a s ta tu t ory m i n i m u m sentence gr ea ter th a n the h i gh en d of h i s gu i d eli n e ca l cu l a ti on , w h eth er ca l cu l a ted w i th Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

I n this situation where a statutory mini mum applie s an d can only be modifie d ba sed 4 on statutoryexceptions, it doe s not matter to the sente nce-reduction analysis th at a di strict court mayh ave considered or p urported to rely o n ge neral guideline provision s when calculatin g theextentof a downward departure. The applicablestatutes and Sentencing C om mi ssionpolicystate me ntsdo notauthoriz e thisapp ro ach , see Hoo d , 55 6 F .3d at 2 34–35, and we willnot consi der a se ntence to b e “b ased on” informal or erroneou s con sideration s. For this reaso n amon g oth er s , w e are unp ersua ded b y Carter’s citationto the Sixth Circuit’s unp ublishe d opinion in Uni ted States v. Ricke tt , 5 2F .3 d 3 2 7 , 1 9 9 5 WL 2 3 4 6 6 5 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 5). Seei d. at *3, *2 (concludingthatsentenc e was “ba sed onanapp licationof the sente ncing guideline s,” becau se the di strict court h ad cons id ered theguidelines in the cour se of calculatin gasente nceb a se d onadownwarddep arturef ro m ast atutoryminimu m). Furthermore, t o the extent that our verybrief unp ublishe d opinion in Un ited Statesv . Morales , 16 0 F . App’x34 0 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), contra dicts our an alysis onthis point, wedis app rove of

itsrea so ning . Seei d. at *340–41 (f indi ng Booker errornot h armle ss in sente nce base d on a downward departure from a statutory mini mum, because the district court app eare d to have reliedon the otherwi se app licable guide line ran ge, andit “mi ght have selected” alower sentenc e if enhancements ba sed onjud icial fact-fin ding h ad not b een inclu de d inth at ran ge) . 6 or w i t h ou tt h e cr ack cocai n e am en dm en t s. I n t h i s c i rcum st an ce, t h e sentence w as “based on” t h e st atutor y m i n i m u m , not t h e gu i del i n e rang e. 4 T h e app l i cat i on of

a d ow n w ard dep art u re u n der 18 U . S . C . § 355 3( e) does n otal t er t h i s ana l ysi s. Sect i on 355 3( e) provi des: U p on m oti on of th e G ov ern m en t, th e cou rt sh a l lh a ve th e a u th ority t o i m pose a sentence bel ow a l evelest abli shed by s ta tu te as a m i n i m um s ent enc e s o a s t o r ef l ec ta de fendant ’ s subs t ant i al as s i s t anc e i n t he i nve s t i ga t i o n orpr o s e c ut i o n o f a no t he rpe r s o n who h a s co m m itt e d a n o ffe n s e . S u c h s e n t e n c e s h a ll b e im p o s e din ac c o r da nc e w i t h t he gui de l i ne s and po l i c y s t at e m e nt s i s s ue d b y t he S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on p u rsuan tto sect i on 9 94 of t i t l e 28, U n i t ed S t ates C ode. C art er proposes t h at w h en t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed the govern m en t ’ s m ot i on f o ra r e duc e d s e nt e nc e und e r§ 3 55 3( e ) , t he s t at ut o r y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e no l o nge ra ppl i e d. Thus , he ar gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d ha ve a ppl i e d “ t he gu i del i n es and pol i cy stat em en t s i ssued b y t h e Sen t en ci n g C om m i ssi on , ” w h i ch C art er i n t erpret s t o ref er t o t h e ot h erw i se ap pl i cabl e gu i del i n e ran ge. W e do n ot a g r e e w ith th is in te r p r e ta tio n o f § 3 5 5 3 (e ). Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

7 N o t hi ng i n § 3 55 3( e ) i ndi c at e s t hata s t at ut o r y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e gi ves w ayt o a n o t he r w i s e a ppl i c ab l e gui de l i ne ra nge w he n adi s t r i c tc o ur tr e duc e s t he sen ten ce ba sed on th e defen d a n t’ s su b stan ti a l a ssistan ce t o t h e go ve rn m en t. R ather, § 3 55 3(e ) de s c r ibe s t h e fam i l i ar procedu re of a dow n w ard d epa rt u re f rom a bas e l i ne s e nt e nc e . The Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n ha s i ndi c at e d t hatt he ap pl i c ab l e po l i c y s t at e m e ntf o r§ 3 55 3( e ) i s U . S. S. G . § 5 K 1. 1, w hi c h i s t he g e n e r a lp r o v is io n g o v e r n in gd o w n w a r dd e p a r tu r e s fr o m th e g u id e lin e s . S ee § 5 K 1. 1, Com m e nt ar y 1. Se c t i o n 5 K 1. 1 pr o vi de s t hat“ [ u] po n m o t i o n o f t he g o v e r n m e n t s ta tin gt h a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a s p r o v id e ds u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e . . . t he c our tm ay d epart f rom t h e guidel i n es ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . Ac c o r di ngly, t he Com m i s s i o n i m pl i c i t l y c o ns i de r s a s t at ut o r y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e t o b e a nal o go us t o a l o w- e n d g u i d e l i n e f r o m wh i c h t h e c o u r t m a y d e p a r t . Thati s t he in te r p r e ta tio n w e g iv e to § 3 5 5 3 ( e ) a s w e ll. A ccor dHood , 556 F. 3d at235 ( “ § 355 3 a ll ow s f

or a depa rt u re f

rom , not t h e r em oval of , a st atutor i l y requ i red m i ni m um s ent enc e. ” (c i t i ng Un i t ed Stat es v. P i l low , 1 91 F . 3d 4 03, 4 07 (4t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 )); Wi l l i a ms , 549 F . 3d at 134 1. F u rth e rm ore, i n asm u ch as t h e st atutor y m in im u m r e m a in s th e b a s e lin e s e n te n c e fr o m w h ic h th e co u r t m a yd o w n w a r d ly de pa r t , w e do no ta gr e e w i t h Car t e rt hatt he phr ase “i n a ccor da nc e w i t h t he gu i del i n es and pol i cy st atem en t s i ssued by the S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on ” ref ers t o ordi n ary gu i del i n e rang es. Instead, w e i n t erpreti tt o ref er t o such gu i del i n es andpo l i c y s t at e m e nt s a s t he Com m i s s i o n m ay c r e at e s pe c i f i c al l y t o i m pl e m e nt § 35 53 ( e ) . As no t e d i n Ho o d, 5 5 6 F .3 da t 2 3 5 , t h e a p p lic a b le p o lic ys ta te m e n t is t h e dow n w ard d epa rt u re provi si on of U . S . S . G . § 5K 1. 1, w h i ch st ates pri n ci pl es f o rde t e r m i ni ng w he t he ra nd ho w fart o do w nw ar dl y de pa r t ; t he s e nt e nc i ng com m i ssi on ha s not creat ed an y f u rt h er “ sentenci n g ran ges” forsu ch dow n w ard dep art u res. N o ra r e w e pe r s uad e d t hatU . S. S. G . § 1 B1. 10

— t he po l i c y s t at e m e nt provi di n g gu i da n ce f or r edu ct i on of

s e n t en ces u n der § 3582 (c) ( 2)

— sup ports a Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

8 redu ct i on of

sentence. W h ereas § 358 2( c) ( 2) al l ow s m odi f i cat i on onl y of sentences “based on” am en ded s e n te n ci n g ran ges, C art er notes t h at un der § 1 B 1 .10 (a )(1), a r e d u ctio n m a yb e a p p ro p ria te if “ th e g u id elin e r a nge a pp lica b le to [th e ] d e fe n d a n t h a s s u b s e q u e n tlyb e e n lo w e r e da s a re s u lt o f [c e r ta in a m e n d m e n ts ].” (e m p h a s is a d d e d ); seealso § 1B 1. 10(a) ( 2) ( “Areducti on . . . i s not aut ho r i z e d [i f

t he a m e ndm e nt ] do e s no tha ve t he e f fe c to f l o w e r i ng t he defenda n t ’ s appl i c ablegui del i ne range . ” ) ( em phasi s added) . C ar t er ar gues t hat t h e 87 to 108 m on t h rang e i s “ t h e gu i del i n e rang e app l i cabl e” in h i s c ase, even th o u g h a s ta tu to r ym in im u m g u id e lin e s e n te n c e s u p e r s e d e dth a t r a n g e . Cf. U . S . S . G . § 5G 1. 1(b) ( “W h ere a s t atutor i l y requ i red m i n i m u m sentence i s great er th a n th e m axim u m of t h e appli cable gu i del i n e rang e, t h e st atutor i l y requ i red m in im u m se n te n ce sh a llb e th e g u id e li n e se n te n ce .” (em p h a sis a d d e d )). W e r ej e c tt hi s a r gum e ntb e c aus e w e c o nc l ude t hatt h e t e r m “ gui de l i ne ran ge ap pl i cabl e” i n § 1B 1. 10 i n cl u des a st atutor y m i n i m u m sen t en ce w h en such a m i n i m u m app l i es. W e ha ve n ot ed ab ove t h at U . S . S . G . § 5K 1. 1 u ses t h e ph rase “de p a rt f

rom the gu i d eli n es” to d esc r ib e d ow n w a rd de p a rtu res from bo th o r d i n a r yg u i d e l i n e r a n g e s a n ds t a t u t o r ymi n i mu m s e nt e nc e s . S i mi l a r l y , we agree w i t h t h e E l even t h C i rcui t t h at f or pu rposes of

deter m i n i n g el i gibi l i t y f or a s e nt e nc e r e duc t i o n, t he st at ut o r y- m i ni m um “ gui de l i ne se nt e nc e ” be c o m e s t he a p p l i ca b l e “gu i d eli n e ra n ge ”: T h e te r m “g u id e lin e r a n g e ” re fle c ts th e s c o p e o f s e n te n c e s a v a ila b le t o t h e di st ri ctcourt , w h i ch could be l i m i t ed bya st atutor i l y i m posed m and at o r y m i ni m um “ gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e . ” Ac c o r di ngly, w he n a m an da t ory m i n i m u m exceeds som e port i on of t h e rang e f

or t h e base of fens e l eve l , t he appl i c abl e “ gui del i ne r ange” w oul d be f r om t hat m in im u m to t h e u p p e r e n do f th e o r ig in a l g u id e lin e ra n g e . S ee [ Uni t e dS t at e s v . Po pe , 5 8 F .3d 1 5 6 7 , 1 5 6 8 n .1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 )] ( n ot i n g t h at “becau se of t h e st atutor i l y m an da t ed m i n i m u m of t en years, P ope’ s gui del i n es r a n g e b e ca m e 120 t o 121 m on t h s” ) . F or t ho s e s i t uat i o ns i n whi c h t he m and at o r y m i ni m um e xc e e ds t he r a n g e fo rth e e n tir e o ffe n s e le v e l, th e “g u id e lin e s e n te n c e ” w o u ld Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

9 t h u s be t h e sam e as t h e “ g u id e li n e rang e, ” even i f i ti n vol ves a “ ran ge” of

onl y on e nu m ber. Wi l l i a ms , 5 4 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 0

– 4 1 ; accord Byers , 5 61 F. 3da t8 31 . Acc o r di ngly, t he

“ gui de l i ne r ang e a ppl i c ab l e ” r e fe r s t o t he s t at ut o r y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e , a nd a subs equentam endm entt o a di f fer ent pro vi si on (t he unuti l i ze d gui del i ne r ange c al c ul at i o n) do e s no tpr o vi de g r o unds f o ra s e nt e nc e r e duc t i o n. T h i s i n terp reta ti on f i n d s f u rth er su p p o rt i n the A p p l i ca ti on N ote to § 1 B1. 10 ( a) ( 1) , w hi c h m ak e s c l e ar be yo nd pe r ad ve nt ur e t hat i n t he vi e w o f t he C om m i ssi on , a party i n C art er’ s posi t i on i s n ot en t i t l ed t o a sentence redu ct i on u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ): E l i gibi l i t y f

or c on si derati on un der 18 U . S . C . 358 2( c) ( 2) i s t ri ggered o nl y bya n a m e ndm e ntl i s t e d i n subs e c t i o n (c ) t hatl o w e r s t he ap pl i c ab l e g ui de l i ne r ang e . Ac c o r di ngly, a reduct i o n i n t he d e fe n d a n t ’ s t e r m o f

i m p r i s o n m e n ti s n o ta u t h o r i z e d u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) a n d is n o t co n s is te n t w ith th is p o lic y s ta te m e n t if: ( i) N o ne o f t he a m e ndm e nt s l i s t e d i n s ubs e c t i o n (c ) i s ap pl i c ab l e t o t he d e fe n d a n t; o r(ii) a n a m e n d m e n t lis te din s u b s e c tio n (c ) is a p p lic a b le to th e d e fend an tbu tt h e am en dm en tdoes not hav e t h e ef fectof l o w e r i ng t he de fe nda nt ’ s a ppl i c ab l e g ui de l i ne r ang e b e c aus e o f t he o p e r a tio n o f

a n o th e rg u id e lin e o rs ta tu to r yp r o v is io n (e .g ., a sta tu to rym a n d a to rym in im u m ter m of im p riso n m e n t). W e a r e b o und t o t r e att hi s c o m m e nt ar y as “ aut ho r i t at ive unl e s s i t vi o l at e s t he Cons t i t ut i o n o ra fe de r als t at ut e , o ri s i nc o ns i s t e ntw i t h, o ra pl ai nl y e r r o ne o us rea d i n g o f, [th e] gu i d eli n e.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Joh n st on , 5 5 9 F .3 d2 9 2 , 2 9 5 n .4 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng S t i n son v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 508 U . S . 36, 38 ( 199 3) ) . U n der t hats t andard, t he A ppl i c at i on N ot e c ont r ol s. C ar t er has, at m os t , i dent i f i ed an am bi gui t y or i nco nsi st enc y i n t he Sent enc i ng C om m i ss i on’ s use of t he adj ec t ive
“ a p p li c a b le .” T h a t is n o t e n o u g h t o o v e r c o m e t h e S e n t e n c in gC o m m is s io n ’s c l e ar l y e xp r e s s e d i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f § 1 B1. 10 ( a) ( 1) , w hi c h i s c o ns i s t e nt w i t h o ur in te rp re ta tion of 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 08- 20235

10 I I I . C oncl usi on In l i gh t of the an a l ys i s ab ov e, w e j oin the F ou rth , E i gh th , an dE l ev en th Ci r c ui t s a nd h o l d t hatw he n ade fen da n t is s ubj e c tt o a s t at ut o r y m i ni m um sentence a b ove t h e up per end of hi s gui del i n e rang e, even i f t h e di st ri ctcourt d e p a r t s d o wn wa r d l yf r o m t h a tmi n i m u m u n d e ra s t a t u t o r ye x c e p t i o n , 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) p rovi de s no a ut ho r i t y t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o l at e rm o di f y t he sentence based on am en dm en t s t o t h e gu i del i n e ran ge. T h e rul i n g of t h e di st ri ct c o u r t d e n y in gC a r te r ’s m o tio n fo rre d u c tio n o f s e n te n c e is a c c o r d in g ly AF F I RMED. Case: 08-20235 Document: 00511015054 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/28/2010