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: 10a0696n.06 No. 08-6067 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. WI L L I AM ROBI

NSON, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appeal from the United States Di s trict Court for the Wester n District of Tenne ssee

B e fo re : B OG GS, MO OR E, and KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. PER CU RI AM

. Wil liam Robinson appeal s from the dist rict cour t’s order modify ing his sente nce pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2). He arg ues t hat he was entitled to a sentenc e re duction below his revise d Guidelines rang e. Be cause his case is c ontrolled by the Supreme Court’s de cision in Dillon v. United States , 1 30 S. Ct . 2 68 3 ( 20 10 ), we a ff ir m.

I On June 27 , 2 00 0, a

jur y c on vict ed Ro bi ns on of

c on sp ir a c y

to d ist ri bu te c oc a ine ba se , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession of coca ine base with intent to dis tribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). His total of fense level was c alculate d at 40 with a cr iminal hist ory cate g oryNo. 08-6067

United States v. Robinson

- 2 - I , which resulted in a Guidelines rang e of 292 to 365 months. However, the district court found that Robinson’s maxi mum sentenc e was 240 months, or 20 y ear s, under Apprendi v. United States , 530 U.S. 466 ( 2000). Acc ording ly , on September 28, 2000, the court sentenc ed Robinson to 240 months of impriso n m en t fo r each count, to run c oncurr ently . We affir med the sente nce. United States v. Robinson , 42 F. App’ x 789 (6th Cir. 2002). On May 29, 2008, Robinson fi l ed a motion for a re duction in his sentence pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2). I t is undisput ed that he w as elig ible for a sentenc e re duction. Howeve r, Robinson ar g ued that he was also elig ible for a sentenc e that varie d below the rev i s ed Gu idelines rang e. The g overnme nt objected, a rg uing that he was only

entitled to have his initial Guidelines calc ulations reduce d to be base d on a total offe nse lev el of 38, rather than 40. The district court ag ree d, reduc ing Robinson’s sente nce f rom 240 months to 235 mont hs. Robinson ti mely appea led.

II Robinson presents two questions on review : whether the district court incor

rec tly calc ulated his revised Guide lines sentence , and whe ther he is eligible fo r a sente nce be low the minimum revised G uidelines rang e. B eca use neither

of these a

rguments have me rit, we re ject them in turn. Robinson’s first arg ument is that the s en t en ce m odification should take a s a starting point his actual sente nce r ather than his orig inal Guidelines ra ng e. As orig inally calc ulated, Robinson’s minimum Guidelines sentenc e wa s 292 months, because he had a n offe nse leve l of 40 and a criminal history cate g ory of I . Howeve r, he w as sentenced to a lower term of 240 months bec ause that was the maxim um statutory

term for his offense . Robinson arg ues that i f hi s sentenc e we re a GuidelinesNo. 08-6067

United States v. Robinson

The provision is applicable to “a de fenda n t wh o h as b een sentence d to a term of 1 imprisonme n t based on a sentenc ing r ang e that has subse quently been lowe red by

the Sentencing Commi ssion.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

. - 3 - s e n t e n c e , i tw o u l d

f a l l i n t o t h e r an g e f

o r ano f f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 8 an d a

c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y o f I. Rob ins on the re fo re argue s th a t hi s tw o- le ve l re du c tio n sh ou ld take him fr om an of fe ns e le ve l 38 to an off ense le vel 36. This argument fails. B y its terms, a § 3582(c) (2) pr ocee ding e x ists for the purpose of

all o wi n g persons c onvicted of c rimes to take a dvantag e of subse quent lenity in the Guidelines only

. Rob i n s o n seems to assume that be cause his sentence was lowe r than the 1 G u id e li n e s r an g e , w e s h o u ld c o n s id e r h is G u id e li n e s c a lc u lati o nto h a v e b e e nim p li c it ly a d ju s ted. Howeve r, the imposition of a below-G uidelines maxi mum sentence has no ef fec t on the Guidelines calc ulation. R o b i n s o n i s o n l y entitled to have his off

ense le vel re duced f

rom 40 to 38. Thus, the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t e rr in i mpo sin g a

re vis e d s e nte nc e of

23 5 mo nth s. Rob ins on a lso c on te nd s th a t United States v. Book er , 5 43 U.S

. 22 0 ( 20 05 ), a pp lie s to his sentenc e modification procee dings, a nd that the district court should ha ve varie d from the r evised Guidelines ra

ng e. Howe ver, the Supreme Court has ex pressly reje cted that arg ument. I n Dillon v. Un i t ed S t a tes , th e Co u rt h e ld th a t “ [g ]i v e n th e li mi te d s c o p e an d p u r p o s e o f § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , we conclude that proce eding s under that se ction do not impli cate the intere sts identified in Booke r .” 130 S

. C t
. a t2 6 9 2

. T h e C o u rth e l d t h a ta d e f

e n d an t ’ s S i x t h A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s w e r e n o tv i o l a t e d

b y a district court’s de cision to consider re ducing his sentence no further than the bottom of the re vised Guidelines ra

ng e. Ibid. And further , the Court he ld that the reme dial aspec ts of Bo ok e r do no t a

pp ly in § 3582(c)( 2) proc eeding s. Id. at 2693.No. 08-6067

United States v. Robinson

- 4 - Robinson also argues t hat i n light of the S upreme Court’s holding in Spears v. United States , 1 2 9 S. Ct

. 8 4 0 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , h e is e n ti tl e d to r e s e n te n c in g b e c a u s e h is s e n te n c in g ju d g e f a il e d to r e c o g n iz e his authority

to deviate f

rom the cr ack- coca ine g uidelines. Sp e ar s held that “district cour

ts are entitled to r ej ec t and vary cate g orica lly

from the c rac k-coc aine Guide lines based on a policy disag ree m en t with those Guidelines.” 129 S. Ct. at 843-44. I n Robinson’s 2000 sentencing , the dis tr ic t c ourt

c le arl y fe lt b ound

by the Gu ide lin e s. Th e c ourt op ine d, “ Mr . Ro bin so n, y our c a se is troubling

. . . [t he long sentenc e] se ems to be terribly unfortunate

. . . [but ] there is nothing that Ican do to chang e the c ong ressional intent that imposes sentenc es like this.” R. 100/101, at 18. Howeve r, that sentenc e is final. Dillon allows only the nar row scope of re vision established by § 3582(c) (2). Robinson reli es o n our pre - Dillon decisions in United States v. Vande wege , 561 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2009), and United States v. J ohnson , 553 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 2009), for the proposition that th e d i s t ri ct court’s misunderstanding of its authority to depar t from the Guidelines w arr ants an automatic re versa l. Howeve r, his relianc e on Vandewege is misplaced. I n that case , we g rante d the defe ndant’s re quest for r esente ncing under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) –a for m of relief

that Ro b i nson ha s a lr e a dy re c e ive d. We a lso ind ic a te d th a t Sp e ar s re qu ir e d a r e mand , b ut t hat w a s o nly

be c a us e Vandewege involved a d i rect appea l. Consequently , Vandewege does not requir e re versa l in an appea l f rom a § 3582(c )(2) sentenc e modification. Johnson is simi larly unavailing . Although w e
rema nded that ca se for

rese ntencingi n l i gh t of Sp e ar s , Johnson also involved a dire ct sentenc e appea l rather

than a § 3582( c)( 2) sentenc e modification. I n sum, Dillon square ly

controls this case. Had Robinson been c onvicted and se ntence d a few y ear s later than he was, he might have been able to take advantag e of Sp e ar s and Kimbrough v.No. 08-6067

United States v. Robinson

- 5 - United States , 552 U.S. 85 (2007 ). As it is, however, Robinson was va lidly sentenc ed and that sentenc e bec ame f

inal under the law as it existed at the time. Wit h limit ed exceptions, a “ court may not mo d if y a te r m o f im p r is o n me n t o n c e it h a s b e e n im p o s e d

. ” 1 8 U

. S. C. § 3 5 8 2(c) . Robinson simply has no proc edura l avenue s left to pursue. Acc ording ly , the district court did not abuse its discretion in modify ing Robinson’s sente nce from 240 months to 235 months of im prisonment. A §3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) proc eedingis not a plenary

re se nte nc ing , a

nd Rob ins on ’s argume nts are thu s una va ili ng . F or

that r e a so n, we AF F I RM.