2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-16-2010

USA v. Shavoun A. Berry

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-3269

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Shavoun A. Berry" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1493.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1493
*Hon. Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-3269

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SHAVOUN A. BERRY,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 3-99-cr-00015-001 )

District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 15, 2010

Before: SLOVITER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges,

and POLLAK , District Judge *

Filed: April 16, 2010

 

OPINION

 
2

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Shavoun A. Berry appeals an order of the District Court denying his motion to

reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We will affirm.

I.

In April 2000, Berry pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with the

intent to distribute in excess of five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

846 and 841(a)(1). Berry’s original adjusted offense level under the Sentencing

Guidelines was 25 based on the amount of crack involved. Because Berry had at least

two prior felony drug convictions, he was designated a career offender under U.S.S.G. §

4B1.1. Under this provision, Berry’s offense level was 31, after a three-level reduction

for acceptance of responsibility. Berry had a criminal history category VI and a

Guidelines range of 188-235 months imprisonment. Although Berry argued that the

career offender provision overrepresented his criminal history under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3,

the District Court rejected this argument and sentenced Berry to 188 months.

Berry was unsuccessful in seeking to vacate his sentence in November 2001. In

October 2008, Berry filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),

arguing that a sentence reduction was warranted based on amendments to the Guidelines

which retroactively reduced the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses. See

U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706 (Nov. 1, 2007). Berry argued that his career offender

status overrepresented his criminal history and that his counsel was ineffective for failing
1 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(3).

3

to seek a departure on that basis. The District Court denied the motion and this appeal

followed.1

II.

 We review a sentencing court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion under §

3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 & n.2 (3d

Cir. 2009). A sentencing court may reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c) when

a defendant “has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered [by the Sentencing Commission]” and it is “consistent with applicable

policy statements.” United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 308 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting §

3582(c)(2)). The Sentencing Commission has stated that a sentence reduction is not

authorized if the retroactive amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the

defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). In Mateo, this

court held that the crack cocaine amendment does not lower the applicable Guidelines

sentencing range for career offenders. Mateo, 560 F.3d at 154-55. This is because

“Amendment 706 only affects calculation under § 2D1.1(c), and the lowering of the base

offense level under § 2D1.1(c) has no effect on the application of the career offender

offense level required by § 4B1.1.” Id. at 155. Because Berry was sentenced as a career

offender, the crack cocaine offense levels did not affect his actual sentencing range. 

Thus, the District Court did not err in denying Berry’s motion to reduce his sentence. 
4

We also reject Berry’s arguments that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), support a different result. 

These cases do not provide a basis for a sentence reduction not otherwise permitted under

§ 3582(c). Mateo, 560 F.3d at 155-56. Finally, any claims for relief based on ineffective

assistance of counsel are not properly before this court. Berry had previously filed a §

2255 motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, which the District Court denied

and this court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Because we may only certify

a second § 2255 motion based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of

constitutional law and subject to other limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, none of

which pertains here, we cannot consider Berry’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

III.

For the above-stated reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.