2009 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 6-4-2009 

# U SA v . D e nni s S prigg 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 . 08-3223

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_2009

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 2009 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 . D e nni s S pr i gg " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1237. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1237NOT 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. 08- 3223

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. D EN N I S SPRI G G S, 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 . N o. 03- cr - 246) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay21, 2009 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , J O R D A N a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed on J une 04, 2009 )

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . D enni s Spr i ggs appea l s t he deni al bythe 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 of hi s m ot i on t o r educe hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 18U nder18 U . S. C . § 3231, t he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe ef fec t 1 o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a m e n d m e n ts o n S p ri g g s ’s s e n te n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , — F. 3d — , 2009 W L 750411, *2 n. 1, *3 ( 3d C i r . M ar ch 24, 2009) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of Spr i ggs ’ s m ot i on pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 2 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thati tdi d nothave a u th o ri ty to re d u c e S p ri g g s ’s s e n te n c e , w e w ill a f f ir m . I . Backg r ound Spr i ggs pl ed gui l t yt o di s t r i but i on and pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e cr ack coca i ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatSpr i ggs w as a ca r eeroffe nderundert he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , s ethi s offe ns e l evel b a se d o n th e c a re e r o f

f e n d e r ta b le a t U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 , an d se n ten c e d h im to n in e ty -six m o n th s in p riso n . S p rig g s f iled a m o tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) to h a v e h is s ent ence r educe d bas ed on the r ece ntamendm ent s t o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes that r etr oact i vel yl ow er ed the bas e off ens e l evel forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es . T he D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on, s t at i ng s i m pl ythat“[d] ue t o defe ndant ’ s s t atus as a ca r eer offe nder , t he gui del i ne r ange r emai ns the s ame. ” ( A pp. 3. ) Spr i ggs fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce o f a p p e a l a n d c o n te n d s th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n . I I . D i s cus s i on 1 W h e n a d e f

e n d a n tf i l e s a mo t i o n f

o ra s e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) , t he di s t r i ctcourtconduct s a tw o- s t ep ana l y s i s . Fi r s t , i tdet erm i nes w hethert he defe ndant“has been s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange3

t h a th a s s u b s e q u e n t l yb e e n l o we r e d b yth e S e n t e n c i n g Co mmi s s i o n . ” 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). I f th e d ef en d an t’ s sen tenc ing ran g e h as n o t bee n low ere d , the d istri ct co u rt is n o t a u th o ri z e d to re d u c e th e s e n te n c e a n d m u s t d e n yth e m o tio n . See 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ); s ee als o U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( “A r educt i on i n t he def endant ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm enti s notcons i s t entw i t h t hi s pol i cys t at ementand ther efor e i s notauthor i zed under18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) i f . . . ( B ) an amendm entl i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) does not have the ef

fec tof l ow er i ng t he def endant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ”) . I f the defe ndant ’ s s ent enci ng r ange ha s been l ow er ed, the di s t r i ctcour ti s t o cons i derthe § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs a n d th e a p p lica b le p o licysta tem e n ts in th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s in d e c i d i n g wh e t h e rt o e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o r e d u c e th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e . 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). B eca us e the fi r s ts t ep r equi r ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt o i nt erpr etthe Sent enci ng Gu i d e l i n e s , we r e v i e w de novo its d e c is io n a t th a t s te p o f th e a n a lysis . See U

ni t ed Stat es v . Wi l l i a ms , 344 F. 3d 365, 377 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A s the s econd s t ep i nvol ved the exe r ci s e of t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on, w e r evi ew thatpor t i on of the ana l y s i s forabus e of d is c re tio n . See Mat eo , — F .3 d — , 2 0 0 9 W L 7 5 0 4 1 1 , * 2 n .2 . A s w e r ece nt l yexpl ai ned i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , the c ra c k c o c a in e a m e n d m e n ts di d notl ow ert he s ent enci ng r anges of def endant s w ho w er e s ent ence d on the bas i s of th e irs ta tu s a s c a re e r o f

f e n d e rs . Mat eo , — F. 3d — , 2009 W L 750411, *3. ( T he amendm entt o t he cr ack c ocai ne gui del i nes “s i m pl y‘ pr ovi des no benef i tt o car eer4

offe nder s ’ ”) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. For m an , 5 5 3 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 9 (7 th C ir , 2 0 0 9 )) . B eca us e Spr i ggs ’ s s ent ence r ange w as bas ed on hi s s t atus as a ca r eeroffe nder , i tw as not lo w e re d b yth e c ra c k c o c a in e a m e n d m e n ts, a n d th e D istric t C o u rt w a s n o t au th o riz e d to r educe hi s s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed Spr i ggs ’ s m ot i on ats t ep one a nd d id n o t n e e d to c o n tin u e to th e s e c o n d p a rt o f th e a n a lysis . I I I . C oncl usi on B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t itd id n o t h a v e a u th o rityto re d u c e S p ri g g s ’s s e n te n c e , w e w ill a f f ir m .