# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 23 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W en de ll Raym on e Jo ne s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: May 31, 2 01 6 Fil ed : Au gu st 30 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

In Aug us t 20 08 , W en de ll Raym on e Jo n e s f l ed fro m po li ce who were

co nd uc ti ng a co nt ro ll ed bu y of crac k co cai ne

. Dur in g th e en su in g ch as e, Jo ne s dr ov e

ov er 10 0 m il es pe r ho ur , si de swi pe d an un m ark ed po li ce car, th rew crac k co cai ne ou t hi s wind ow, crash ed in to a m ov in g c ar, an d fi na ll y care en ed in to a pa rk ed car. The
pa rk ed car jol te d fo rward an d se ve rel y in jure d two bys t a nd ers ; on e req ui red a le gam

pu ta ti on . Jo ne s p le ad ed gu il ty to p os se ss io n wi th in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 or m or e gr am s of crac k co cai ne , an of fen se tri gg eri ng a m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 12 0

m on th s in pr is on

. See 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) (2 00 9)

. In 20 09 , th e di st ric t cou rt 1

en ha nc ed Jo ne s’s ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge fo r hi s “ reck le ss en d a n g erm en t du rin g fli gh t,” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.2 , an d im po se d a 13 2- m on th se nt en ce. The co ur t em ph as iz ed th e “ ex tre m e d an ge r” J on es crea te d a nd th e “ te rri bl e tr ag ed y ” h e cau se d.

In 20 11 , J on es m ov ed fo r a se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ba se d up on Am en dm en ts 74 8 an d 75 0 to th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es

. He req ue st ed a 12

-

m on th red uc ti on , reco gn iz in g th at he was no t el ig ib le fo r a red uc ti on be lo w th e 12 0-

m on th m an da to ry m in im

um in effe ct whe n he was se nt en ced

. S ee Uni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 73 4 F.3 d 83 6, 83 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ); U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, co m m en t. (n .1). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, ru li ng th at Jo ne s was el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on bu t de cl in in g to gr an t rel ie f. The or ig in al se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te , th e

co ur t co nc lu de d, gi ve n “ th e hi gh -s pe ed ch as e, th e en da ng erm en t of po li ce of fic ers ,
an d t he sev ere i nju rie s t o b y st an de rs .” Jo ne s d id no t ap pe al th at rul in g.

In May 2 01 5, Jo ne s br ou gh t th is m ot io n, ag ai n se ek in g a 1 2

- mon th se nt en ce red uc ti on un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2)
, ba se d up on A m en dm en t 78 2 to th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es

. The di st ric t co ur t ag ai n c o n c l u de d Jo ne s was el ig ib le fo r § 35 82 (c)( 2) rel ie f bu t de ni ed th e m ot io n fo r th e sa m e rea so ns :

[I]n d eci di ng whet he r to ex erci se di sc ret io n t o re du ce J on es ’ se nt en ce, th e Co ur t co ns i d e r s f

a c to rs su ch as th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of Jo ne s’ of fen se

. As was tru e in 20 12 , th e ci rcu m st an ces of Jo ne s’ of fen se weig h ag ai ns t ex erci si ng di sc ret io n to red uc e hi s se nt en ce, pa rti cu la rly th e hi gh -s pe ed ch as e, th e en da ng erm en t of po li c e of fic ers , an d th e

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. -2

-se ve re in juri es to bysta nd ers

. In th is Co ur t’s ju dg m en t, a se nt en ce of 13 2 m on th s i s ju st an d fa ir u nd er t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

.

Jo ne s ap pe al s th is se co nd de ni al of a 12 -m on th se nt en ce red uc ti on , arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n be cau se it “ fo cu se d to o he av il y on th e ci rcu m st an ces of h i s o f

f e n se ,” whi ch were “ al read y ta ke n in to acco un t” by th e reck le ss -fl ig ht en ha nc em en t, an d “ fai le d to gi ve ad eq u a t e at te nt io n to ” m it ig at in g fact or s -- hi s po st -co nv ic ti on “ pr og res s to ward reh ab il it at io n” an d th e ex te nt to whi ch th e Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on ha s red uc ed th e gu id el in e s r a n ge fo r hi s of fen se

. The
pa rti es a g r e e J o n e s was el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on ; we as su m e, wit ho ut de ci di ng , th ey are co rrec t. Th e go ve rn m en t do es no t ch al le ng e ou r au th or it y to

rev ie w th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e di st ric t co ur t’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) ru li ng un de r 18 U.S.C. § 37 42 (a) an d Dil lo n v. Uni te d St at es , 56 0 U.S. 81 7 (2 01 0)

. Co m pa re Uni te d St at es

v. Bo wers , 61 5 F.3 d 71 5, 7 2 0

- 2 8 ( 6 th Ci r. 20 10 ), wit h Uni te d St at es v. Dun n, 72 8 F.3 d 11 51 , 11 55 -5 8 (9 th Ci r. 20 13 ), an d id

. at 11 60 -6 3 (O’Scann la in
, J, co nc ur rin g)

.

Sect io n 35 82 (c)( 2) pr ov id es th at a di st ric t co ur t “ m ay r ed uc e” an el ig ib le de fen da nt ’s pr is on te rm

. The gr an t of § 35 82 (c)( 2) rel ie f is di sc ret io na ry

. See Dil lo n, 56 0 U.S. at 82 7. In de ci di ng whe th er to exe rci se th is di sc ret io n, “ a di st ric t cou rt (i) sh al l con si de r th e § 3 55 3( a) s en te nc in g fact or s, (ii ) sh al l con si de r th e da ng er to any
pe rs on or th e co m

m un it y t h a t may b e po se d by a se nt en ce red uc ti on , an d (ii i) m ay

co ns id er po st -s en te nc in g con du ct of th e de fen da nt th at oc cu rred aft er im po si ti on of th e te rm of im

pr is on m en t.” Uni te d St at es v. B o yd
, 81 9 F.3 d 10 54 , 10 56 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), qu ot in g U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, co m m en t. (n .1(B )). The co ur t ha s “ wid e la ti tu de ” in weig hi ng th os e fact or s. Uni te d St at es v. Po wers , No. 15 -1 67 1, 20 16 W L 36 71 50 7,
at *2 (8t h C ir. J ul y

11 , 20 16 ).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at a se nt en ce red uc ti on was no t warra nt ed gi ve n Jo ne s’s reck le ss be ha vi or , th e gr av e ha rm he cau se d, an d hi s pr ov en ris k to th e pu bl ic

. In de ci di ng whe th er to gr an t Jo ne s a § 35 8 2 ( c ) ( 2) se nt en ce red uc ti on , th e

-3

-co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n b y reex am in in g th e da ng ero us an d ha rm fu l

ci rcu m st an ces th at res ul te d in a reck le ss -fl ig ht en ha nc em en t of hi s in it ia l gu id el in es

ran ge

. See Po wers , 20 16 W L 36 71 50 7, at *2

. The co ur t was aware of th e m it ig at in g fact or s urg ed by Jo ne s bu t cho se to gi ve m or e weig ht to ag gr av at in g fact or s. The re

was no ab us e of th e di st ri c t c o u rt’s su bs ta nt ia l di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Hern an de z -Ma rfi l, No. 15 -1 59 5, 20 16 W L 31 76 47 1, at *1 (8 th Ci r. Ju ne 7, 20 16 ) (s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

The ord er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t d at ed Ju ne 8, 2 01 5, i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-