NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0038n.06 No. 08-2010 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. AN THON Y A RT UR O BR AV O, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PEA L F RO M THE U NI TED STATES DIST RI CT CO UR T F OR THE WEST ERN DISTRICT OF MIC HIGAN

Be for e : M ER RI TT, G IBBO NS, and R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. JULIA SMITH G IBBO NS, Circuit Judge. Appellant Anthony Br avo appeals the district
c ourt ’s de nia l of

his mot ion

to re du c e his se nte nc e purs ua nt to 18 U.S .C. § 358 2( c )( 2)
. B e c a us e his
a pp e a l is moo t, w e dis mis s th e a pp e a l. I. On May 4, 20 06 , B ra

vo ple d guil ty to o ne c ount o f c on sp ir a c y to d ist ri bu te and po sse ss w ith intent to dist ribute 500 g rams or more of coc aine, f i v e gra m s o r m o re of

coca ine base , and an unspecifie d quantity of m ethampheta mine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The offense car ried a statutory mandatory

minimum of five year s and a ma x imum of 40 y ear s imprisonment. Bravo was
a lso su bje c t to a min imum f

our- y e ar t e rm

of su pe rv ise d re le a se un de r 21 U. S.C. § 8 41 (b )( 1) (B )( ii) and (iii). In the plea a g ree ment, Br avo ag ree d to cooper ate with law e nforc ement, and the g ov e rnme nt a g re e d n ot t o o pp os e a tw o- le ve l do wnwa

rd de pa rt ur e fo r a c c e pta

nc e of re sp on sib ili tyAm e ndme nt 7 06 to the Se nte nc ing Gu ide lin e s pro vid e d for a tw o- le ve l re du c tio n in the ba se 1 offe nse leve l of crack coca ine offe nses. Amendment 715, supe rsedingAmendment 711, modified the manner

in which the Sentenc ing Guidelines calc ulate the marijuana equivalent of cra ck coc aine wh e n oth e r dr

ug s are inv olv e d in

the of fe ns e and , th e re fo re , mo dif ie d th e c a lc ulatio n o f b a se of fe ns e levels for cra ck coc aine a

mounts. Both amendments a pply retroa ctively
. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c ). 2 under U
. S. S. G
. § 3 E 1
. 1 ( a )
. T h e g o v e r n me n t a ls o mo v e d to r e d

u c e th e o f f e n s e le v e l b y o n e if the district court g rante d the two-leve l depar ture a nd the adjusted off

ense le vel was 16 or

g reater. The P rese ntence Report (“PS R”) calculated a base offe nse l evel of 26, which it reduc ed by three in a ccor dance with the plea ag ree ment, resulting in a rec ommended base offe nse leve l of 23. Takin g int o a c c ount B ra

vo ’s c ri min a l his tor

y c a te g or y of I I I , the PSR c a lc ulate d th e app li cab le Guidelines ra

ng e as 57 to 71 months, adjusted to 60 to 71 months be cause of the five -y ear mandatory minimum sentenc e. The g overnme nt f iled a motion for downwa rd depa rture pur suant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) based on Br avo’s “substantial assistance ,” which had le d in part to the g uilty pleas of two major narc otics suppliers. On Aug ust 31, 2006, the district court sentenc ed Br avo to 57 months imprisonment—the minimum sentenc e allowed by the applicable Gu i d el ines
ra n ge and three months below the mandatory minimum sentenc e—and f ive y ear s of supervise d rele ase. On Fe bruar

y 21, 2008, Br avo filed a m o t i o n for modification or reduc tion of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S .C. § 3582(c) (2) because his sentence was ba sed, in part, on c rac k coca ine. An 1 orig inal Sentence Modification R eport reca lculated Bravo’s s entenc e but deter mined that Br avo wa s i n el i gi b l e f

o r as en t en ce re d

u ct i o np u rs u an tt o § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) be cau s e th e ap p l i cab l e G u i d el i n es ra n ge
re ma ine d th e same . ARe vis e d Se nte nc e Mo dif ic atio n Re po rt

re du c e d B ra

vo ’s or ig ina l ba se of

fe ns e level by two to 24, resulting in a

n ad j u s t ed b as e o ffe nse leve l of 21 and a n applicable Guidelines3

rang e of 46 to 57 months. The statutory mandatory minimum resulted in a modifie d Guidelines rang e of 60 months. Bravo c oncede d that his amended G uidelines rang e wa s 60 months, but arg ued that cappinga re duction of t h e Gui delines ra ng e at the ma

ndatory minimum in light of the g overnme nt’s § 3 5 5 3 (e ) m o tion “destroy [s] ” the “ equity and the spirit” of

both the cra ck coc aine amendments a

nd Br avo’s or igina l plea ag ree ment. After conducting an evidentiar y hear ing, the district c ourt denied the motion on Augu s t 4, 2008. United States v. Brav o , No. 1:05-CR-240 , Slip Op. at 1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 2008) . The district court dete rmined that the a pplicable Guide lines range wa s 60 months due to the five-y ear mandatory

minimum , and, ther efor e, bec ause the new Guide lines rang e wa s n o t lower tha n the
or ig ina l G uid e lin e s r ang e , th a t B ra vo wa s in e lig ib le for a

re du c tio n in

se nte nc e purs ua

nt t o § 3582(c) (2). Id. at 3. The district c ourt furthe r found that the § 3553(e ) motion did not affec t the reduc tion permitted under § 3582( c)( 2) bec ause: (1) that moti o n re s u l t ed in a non- Guidelines sentenc e and did not af

fec t the original Guidelines rang e relevant for § 3582(c) (2) pur

poses; and (2) the a me ndme nts to the Gu ide lin e s on w hic h B ra vo re lie d d id n ot w a ive or c ha ng e the a pp lic a bil ity of the mandatory

minimum sentenc e. Id. at 3–4. B ravo timely appea led to this court. On September 14, 2009, Br avo was rele ased from fede ral prison, and he is curre ntly serving a five -y ear

term of supe rvised re lease
. II. This c o u rt h a s h e ld

th a t a na p p e a l o f a d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d e n ia l o f r e - s e n te n c in g u n d er § 3582(c) (2) become s moot upon c ompletion of the appe llant’s custodial term. See United States v. W altanen , No. 08-1695 , 2 0 0 9 W L 4824874, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec . 16, 2009). The Sente ncing4

Guidelines mandate that re sentenc ing unde r § 3582(c ) “do[es ] n o t co nstitut e a f ull resentenc ing,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10( a)( 3), and that “[i] n no event may the re duced te rm of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the de fenda nt has alre ady

serve d,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b) (2)( C). Comment 4(A) of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 fur

ther states tha t “[ t ] h i s s ection does not a uthorize a reduc tion in the term of impris o n m ent i mposed upon a re vocation of supe rvised re lease .” The ref ore, a s we found in W altanen , “ [b]e c a

us e [B ra vo ] h a s no w se rv e d his c us tod ia l se nte nc e , and the Gu ide lin e s p ro hib it
any re du c tio n in e ith e r the c us tod ia l se nte nc e a lr e a dy c omp le te d o r a

ny futur e imp ri so nme nt d

ue to
a revoc ation of supervised rele ase, [Bravo’ s] appe al is moot as to a ny custodial sentenc e.” W altanen , 2 0 0 9 WL 4 8 2 4 8 7 4 , at *2; see als o U nite d S tates v . Le wis , 166 F. App’ x 193, 195 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that no meaning ful relief may be g rante d reg ardinga custodial sentenc e once that sentence has bee n serve d). We a nd oth e r c ir c uit s h a ve fo un d th a t su c h a pp e a ls a re no t moot if

the re re ma ins a

po ssi bil ity that the district court c ould mod i fy an y t erm of supervised re lease to which the appe llant remains subject. See U

nited States v. May , 568 F.3d 597, 602 (6th Cir. 2009) (finding a sente ncing appea l not to be moot where the district court on re mand could reduc e the term of supervised rele ase by as
muc h a s o ne y e ar) ; United States v. Mak en , 510 F.3d 654, 656 n.3 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Eve n when a n
a pp e lla nt h a s b e e n r e le a se d f

ro m c us tod

y , h is c a se is not

moo t so lon g a s th e a

pp e a l ‘ po te nti a lly imp lic a te s’ the le ng th of the a pp e lla nt’ s su pe rv ise d r e le a se te rm .” ); Un ite d S tates v . B lac k

bu rn , 461 F.3d 259, 262 ( 2d Cir. 2006 ) (c o l l ec t i n g case s and noting that the appe al was moot bec ause the possibili ty

of a r eduction of supe rvised re lease was “ so remote a nd speculative that any

decision on the m erits” w o u ld

n o t a f f e c t t h e ma tt e r in th e is s u e b e f

o r e th e c o u rt)
. B r a v o ’ s te r m o f s u p e r vised5

rele ase is one year

g reater than that mandated by statute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(B )(ii) and (iii); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b) (2006) (providing for a term of supe rvised re lease betwee n three and five y ear s). Therefor e, Bravo’ s case is not moot if, pursuant to a f avora ble ruling by

this court, the district court has a

uthority to modify

his term of super

vised rele ase upon r emand. Acc ording to the Sentencing Guidelines, a district court may modify the t erm of supervised
re l ea s e wh er e i t “o t h erwi s e w o u l d h av e b ee nap p ro p ri at e a s a r es u l to f t h e a m en d edgu i d el i n e r an ge de te rm ine d un de r [U. S.S. G. § 1B 1. 10 (b )( 1) ]” on ly “ in c onne c tio n wi th any mot ion for ear ly te rm inatio n o f a

te rm of su

pe rv ise d re le a se un de r 18 U. S.C. § 358 3( e )( 1) .” U. S.S. G. § 1 B 1. 10 c mt. 4( B ); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1 ) (gr an t ing the district court authority to terminate a

term of
su pe rv ise d r e le a se in c e rt ain cir cums tanc e s) . H ow e ve r, the Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r e str ic t th is authority by providing that “the f act that a defe ndant may

have se rved a

longe r term of

imprisonment t h an t h e c o u rt d et erm i n es wo u l d h av e b ee nap p ro p ri at e i nv i ew o f t h e a m en d edgu i d el i n e r an ge deter mined under [§ 1B1.10](b)( 1) shall not , with ou t m or e , provide a basis for ear ly termination of supervised r elea se.” U .S.S.G. § 1B 1.10 cmt. 4(B ) (empha sis a dded). Br avo has not f iled any motion under § 3583( e)( 1) see king a modification of his te rm of super vised rele ase a

nd is not eligible to do
so until September

14, 2010. See § 3583(e) (1) (g ranting district courts authority to “terminate a ter

m of super vised rele ase . . . at any

time after

the expiration of one y ear of super vised rele ase . . .” ). There fore , even if

we we re to re mand the ca se to the district court, that co u rt would lack the
a uth or ity to r e du c e B ra

vo ’s te rm of su pe rv ise d r e le a se a t this time
. Re so lvi ng the iss ue be fo re us in this appeal, ther efor e, could not “pote ntially implicate[] ” B ravo’ s term of super vised rele ase.6

Furthermore , we ha

ve held that whe n an appe llant fails to challeng e either the under ly ing conviction or the non- custodial eleme nts of the sentenc e of w hich he se eks m o d i fi ca tion under § 3582(c) , his appea l is moot once he completes his custodial sentence unless he spec ifically seeks modification of any

term of supe rvised re lease
. See W altanen , 2009 WL 4824874, at *2 (quoting Un ite d S tat es v . G old

be rg , 2 3 9 F. Ap p ’x 9 9 3 , 9 9 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ [ I ] f a pr i s o n er d o es n o tch al l en ge the va lid ity

of the c on vic tio n b ut r a the r on ly c ha lle ng e s his se nte nc e or so me a sp e c t of it, the re qu e st fo r r el i ef i s m o o t o n ce t h e ch al l en gedp o rt i o no f t h e s en t en ce h as ex p i re d
. ” ( qu o t i n g United States v. Manogg , 9 91 F .2 d 7 97 , 19 93 WL88 21 7, a t *1 (6 th C ir . M ar. 26 , 2 00 7) )) . A t no tim e duri nghis § 3582(c) proce eding s befor e the district cour t or th i s court did B ravo c halleng e his term of supervised r elea se. B ravo’ s filings in the dist rict court demonstrate that he sought only to modify his te rm of imp ri so nme nt, and he do e s no t se e k a re du c tio n in

the te rm of su pe rv ise d r e le a se in h is br ie f b e fo re thi s c ourt . T he re fo re , w e mus t di smi ss B ra vo ’s a pp e a l a s mo ot. III
. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e dis mis s B ra vo ’s a pp e a l.