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 4-16-2010 

# U SA v . S h a voun A. B e rry 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 . 09-3269

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 . S h a voun A. Be rry " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1493. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1493*H on. L oui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ct

of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 3269

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S HAVOU N A. BE RR Y, 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 fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 3- 99- cr - 00015- 001 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti

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

A pr i l 15, 2010 B efore: S L O V ITE R and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2010 OP I NI ON2

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . S h a v o u n A . B e rrya p p e a ls a n o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. I n A pr i l 2000, B err ypl ed gui l t yt o cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e i n exce s s of fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846 and 841( a) ( 1) . B err y ’ s or i gi nal adj us t ed off ens e l evel undert he Sent enci ng G uidel i nes w as 25 b ased on t he am ou nt of crack i nv olved. B ecause B erryhad atl east tw o p ri o r f

e lo n yd ru g c o n v ic tio n s , h e w a s d e s ig n a te d a c a re e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1. U ndert hi s pr ovi s i on, B err y ’ s offe ns e l evel w as 31, aft era thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . B err yhad a c r i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryV I and a G ui del i nes r ange of

188- 235 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A l t hough B err yar gued thatt he car eeroffe nderpr ovi s i on overr epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yunderU . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3, t he D i stri ctC ou rtrej ect ed thi s ar gu m ent and sentenced B erryt o 1 88 m on t hs. B erryw as u n su cc essf

u l i n see k ing to v ac ate h is sen tenc e in N o v em b er 2 0 0 1 . In O ctob er 2 0 0 8 , B erryfil ed a m o ti o n to red u ce h is sen tenc e u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2), ar gui ng t hata s ent ence r educt i on w as w arr ant ed bas ed on amendm ent s t o t he G ui del i nes w h ic h re tr o a c tiv e ly re d u c e d th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e ls f

o r c ra c k c o c a in e o f

f e n s e s . See U . S. S. G . A pp. C , A m end. 706 ( N ov. 1, 2007) . B err yar gued thathi s car eeroffe nder s t atus overr epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand thathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng1 T h is co u rth as ju ri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a)(3). 3 t o s eek a departur e on thatbas i s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. 1 II. W e re v iew a se n tenc ing co u rt ’s de cisi o n to d en ya d ef en d an t’ s m o ti o n u n d er § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 560 F. 3d 152, 154 & n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . A s ent enci ng cour tm ayr educe a t erm of i m pr i s onm entunder§ 3582( c) w hen a d e f e n d a n t “h a s b e e n se n ten c e d . . . b a se d o n a se n ten c in g ra n g e th a t h a s s u b se q u e n tly b e e n lo w e re d [ b yth e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n ]” a n d it i s “ c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le pol i cys t at ement s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 564 F. 3d 305, 308 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng § 3582( c) ( 2) ) . T he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on has s t at ed thata s ent ence r educt i on i s not author i zed i f the r etr oact i ve amendm ent“does nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng t he defe ndant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B ) . I n M at eo , this cour thel d t hatt he cr ack c ocai ne amendm entdoes notl ow ert he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes s e n te n c in g ra n g e f

o r c a re e r o f

f e n d e rs . Mat eo , 56 0 F . 3d at15 4-55. Th i s i s becau se “A m end m ent 706 o nlyaffects cal culat i on un der § 2D 1. 1(c) , and t he low eri ng of the base offe ns e l evel under§ 2D 1. 1( c) has no eff ecton t he appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nder offe ns e l evel r equi r ed by§ 4B 1. 1. ” Id . at155. B eca us e B err yw as s ent ence d as a ca r eer o f f e n d e r, t h e c ra c k c o c a in e o f f e n s e le v e ls d id n o t a f

f e c t h is a c tu a l s e n te n c in g ra n g e . T h u s , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g B e rr y ’s m o tio n to re d u c e h is s e n te n c e .4

W e a lso re

jec t B e rry ’s a rg u m e n ts th a t U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 8 5 (2 0 0 7 ), s u p p o rt a d if f e re n t r e s u lt. T hes e ca s es do notpr ovi de a ba s i s fora s ent ence r educt i on notot herw i s e perm i t t ed under § 3 5 8 2 (c ). Mat eo , 560 F. 3d at155- 56. Fi nal l y , anycl ai m s forr el i ef ba s ed on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar e notpr oper l ybefor e thi s cour t . B err yhad pr evi ous l yfi l ed a § 2255 m ot i on as s er t i ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed and thi s cour tdecl i ned t o i s s ue a c er t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y . B eca us e w e mayonl ycert i fy a s econd § 2255 mot i on bas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence ora new rul e of cons t i tut i onal l aw and s ubj ectt o ot herl i m i t at i ons s etfor t h i n 28 U . S. C . § 2244, none of w h ic h p e rt a in s h e re , w e c a n n o t c o n s id e r B e rr y ’s in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im s . See 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 (h). III . F o r th e a b o v e -sta ted re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.