2010 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 1-25-2010 

# U SA v . Gregory Rob e rson 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 . 09-4066

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . Gr e g ory Ro be r s on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2019. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/20191

HLD- 0 4 5 ( De c e mb e r 2 0 0 9 ) NOT 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- 4066

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . GR E GOR Y L . RO BE RS ON, 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 99- cr - 00080) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

D ece m ber30, 2009 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary25, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

A p p e llan t G re g o ryL . R o b e rso n , p ro c e e d in g p ro se , so u g h t a r e d u c tio n in h is sen tenc e o f im p ri so n m en t pu rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c), w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtA ccor di ng t o t he G overnm ent , w hi l e the gui del i ne r ange i s 360 t o l i fe, the upper 1 ran g e in th is pa rt icular c ase w as 1 0 8 0 m o n ths, calcu lat ed b yco m b ining the s tatu tory m axi m um s ent ence foreac h of the cr i m es of w hi ch R ober s on w as convi ct ed. 2 d e n i e d . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. I n 2000, fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, R ober s on w as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e i n exce s s of 50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( cr ack) and c o c a in e , a n d d is tr ib u tio n a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e b a s e (c ra c k ). T he C our tdet erm i ned hi s bas e off ens e l evel t o be 34, w i t h a 4 l evel upw ar d adj us t m ent forhi s r ol e as an or gani zerand l eade r , and a 2 l evel upw ar d adj us t m entforpos s es s i on of a d an g ero u s w ea p o n , fo r a total ba se o ff en se lev el of

4 0 , w ith a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry of V I . T hi s r es ul t ed i n an i m pr i s onm entr ange of 360 m ont hs t o l i fe. R ober s on w as 1 se n ten c e d to a to tal o f

3 6 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. I n 2007, t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on enac t ed A m endment 706, w hi ch l ow er ed the bas e off ens e l evel forcoca i ne bas e ( “cr ack” ) offe ns es , and made th e A m e n d m e n t re tro a c tiv e . R o b e rso n th e re a f ter f iled a m o tio n se e k in g a re d u c tio n in h is s ent ence pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) pr ovi des thatthe se n ten c in g c o u rt m a ym o d if ya ter m o f

im p riso n m e n t: i n t he ca s e of a defe ndantw ho has been s ent ence d t o a t erm of im p riso n m e n t bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l

y bee n l ow er ed

bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . 994( o) , upon m ot i on of the def endant ort he D i r ect orof the B ur eau of Pr i s ons , oron i t s ow n m ot i on,3 t he courtm ayr educe t he t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , aft er cons i der i ng t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3553( a) t o t he e x ten t th a t th e ya re a p p lica b le, if su c h a re d u c tio n is cons i s t entw i t h 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. I n det erm i ni ng w hethera def endant ’ s s ent ence i s el i gi bl e fors uch a r educt i on, the s ent enci ng cour ti s di r ect ed t o “det erm i ne the amended gui del i ne r ange thatw oul d have been a ppl i cabl e t o t he def endanti f the amendm ent ( s ) t o t he gui del i nes l i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) had bee n i n eff

ectatt he t i m e the def

endantw as s ent ence d. I n m aki ng s uch det erm i nat i on, t he courts hal l s ubs t i tut e onl ythe amendm ent s l i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) for t he corr es pondi ng gui del i ne pr ovi s i ons thatw er e appl i ed w hen the def endantw as s e nt e nc e d a nd s ha l l l e a ve a l l othe rgu i de l i ne a pp l i c a t i on de c i s i on s un a ff e c t e d. ” Se e U . S. S en tenc ing G u idelines § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (b).

In hi s m oti on , R ob ers on argued that w i t h a tw o level reduct i on , his base o ff en se lev el w o u ld b e 3 2 , resu lt ing in a s en tenc ing ran g e o f 2 1 0 -26 2 m o n ths. H o w ev er, R o b e rso n ’s c a lcu latio n o m itt e d th e tw o u p w a rd d e p a rtu re s, w h ich a c tu a llyp lac e h im a t a t ot al bas e off

ens e l evel of 38. A s bot h t he G overnm entand the Feder al Publ i c D efe nder expl ai ned t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , underthe new Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , R ober s on r emai ns in th e s a m e s e n te n c in g ra n g e . A c c o rd in g ly, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d R o b e rs o n ’s m o tio n .

We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . We re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s in terp re tatio n o f th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s d e n o v o a n d its d e c isio n w h e th e r to g ra n t o r d e n ya d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to re d u c e h is s e n ten c e p u rsu a n t to4

§ 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 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). I n hi s oppos i t i on t o pos s i bl e s um m aryact i on, R ober s on ar gues thatunder U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , notonl yar e the s ent enci ng gui del i nes advi s or yr athert han mandat or y , buts o i s the pr es cr i pt i on of s ect i on 3582 thatthe s ent enci ng r ange musthave s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed bef or e a di s t r i ctcour tm ay cons i derr e- s ent enci ng a def endant . D es pi t e R ober s on’ s as s ert i on t o t he contr ary , no cour thas hel d as m uch. I n U ni t ed St at es v. H i cks , 472 F. 3d 1167 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , the N i nt h C i r cui thel d t hat , i n t he ca s e of a defe ndant“w hos e s ent enci ng r ange ha s been low ere d b ythe S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 9 4 4 (o),” the d istri ct co u rt m ayt r eatt he new s ent enci ng r ange a s advi s oryr atherthan mandat oryi n r e- s ent enci ng t hatdefe ndant . See i d. at1170; buts ee U ni t ed St at es v. D i l l on, 572 F. 3d 146, 149- 50 ( 3d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , c e r t . g r a n t e d , __ S . Ct . __ , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 8 9 9 5 6 2 ( De c . 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) . As we exp l ai ned i n M at eo, “[t ]o be en t i t l ed to a r edu ct i on of sen t ence, a defend ant’ s s ent enci ng r ange m usthav e been l ow ered byrecal culat i on based o n the am end ed b ase offen se l evel . ” 560 F. 3d at154. B eca us e R ober s on’ s s ent enci ng r ange w as notaff ect ed by A m endment706, he i s notel i gi bl e fora r educt i on i n hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o Sect i on 3 5 8 2 (c). A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyd en ied R o b erso n ’s m o ti o n fo r a r educt i on i n s ent ence .5 B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e conc l ude thatthi s appea l pr es ent s no “s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, ” and w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t . See 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 & I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .