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 7-22-2009 

# U SA v . J o seph D i filipp o 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 . 08-3798

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 authori 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 . J os ep h Di fil ippo " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 970. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/970NOT 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- 3798

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OS E P H DI F I L I P P O, 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 ( M . D . Pa. C r i m . A ct i on N o. 05- cr - 00071) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y21, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y22, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J os eph D i Fi l i ppo, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r educe hi s s ent ence u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 ©. W e wi l l a f f i r m.2

I n February2005, D i Fi l i ppo pl ed gui l tyt o one countof di s tr i but i on and pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e i n exce s s of 50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, a cr i m e forw hi ch the m ax im u m statu toryp en altyis l ife im p ri so n m en t. S ee 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1); 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . A ccor di ng t o t he pr e- s ent ence r eport , D i Fi l i ppo or di nar i l yw oul d have f a c e d u n d e r th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s a to tal o f f e n se lev e l o f

2 9 b a se d o n a d ru g q u a n tity o f mo r e th a n 5 0 g r a ms a n d l e s s th a n 1 5 0 g r a ms o f c o c a i n e b a s e , s e e U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 4) , a tw o- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , s ee U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1( a) , and a one - l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entfort i m el ynot i ce of i nt ent i on to p lead g u il ty , see U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 (b). A s a c are er o ff en d er, ho w ev er, D iFil ipp o ’s s ent enci ng r ange w as det erm i ned bas ed on the t abl e i n U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( b) . See U ni t ed St at es v. M at eo, 560 F. 3d 152, 154 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . T hatt abl e pr ovi des thata ca r eer offe nderw ho fac es a maxi m um penal tyof l i fe i n pr i s on has an off ens e l evel of 37. See U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 . F ac tori n g in the sam e thre e-lev el do w n w ard ad justm en ts, D iFil ipp o ’s t ot al offe ns e l evel w as 34. W i th a mandat oryC r i m i nal H i s t orycat egoryof V I , s ee U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( b) , D i Fi l i ppo fac ed a G ui del i nes r ange of 262 t o 327 m onths of im p ri s o n m e n t. T he governm entm oved fora dow nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance under U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 , rec o m m e n d in g a f o u r-le v e l d e p a rtu re to a G u id e lin e ra n g e o f 1 6 8 to 210 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed thatD i Fi l i ppo w as a ca r eer o f f e n d e r, g ra n ted th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n f o r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re , an d u lti m a tely3

i m pos ed a pr i s on s ent ence of 120 m onths , the s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um . See 21 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i i ) . Di F i l i p p o th e n f i l e d a p r o s e mo t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) ( 2) t o r educe hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s r etr oact i ve amendm ent s t o t he cr ack c ocai ne G ui del i nes . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of a di s tr i ct court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes i s de novo, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Sanchez , 562 F. 3d 2 7 5 , 2 7 7 -7 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), an d w e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s e x e rc ise o f its a u th o rityto r educe a s ent ence under§ 3582( c) ( 2) forabus e of di s cr et i on. See i d. at277 & n. 4. S ect i on 35 82 (c) (2) authori zes a di stri ctcou rtt o reduc e a t erm of im pri sonm ent i n the case o f a d e f e n d a n t w h o 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 been l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . A s ent ence m ay b e re d u c e d u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) o n lyw h e n “ su c h a re d u c tio n is c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” I d. T he appl i cabl e pol i cy s t at ementpr ovi des thata s ent ence r educt i on i s notauthor i zed i f the r etr oact i ve amendm ent“does nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the def endant ' s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B ) . I n addi t i on, “the t erm ‘ appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange’ in § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (a)(2) ref

er[ s] t o the . . . G u ideline s en tenc es a s set b ythe s tatu torym an d atory m i ni m um . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D oe, – F. 3d –, 2009 W L 1151939, at*5 ( 3d C i r . A pr . 30,4

2 0 0 9 ); se e a lso M a teo , 5 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 (“ ‘[ t]h e ter m “ se n ten c in g ra n g e ” c lea rly cont empl at es the end r es ul tof the over al l gui del i ne ca l cul us , notthe s er i es of t ent at i ve r es ul t s r eac hed atvar i ous i nt er i m s t eps i n the per form ance of thatcal cul us . ’ ” ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C ar abal l o, 552 F. 3d 6, 10 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) ) ) . “Ther efor e, pur s uantt o t he s t atut e, ‘ i f an a m ended gui del i ne does nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the s ent enci ng r ange a ctual l yus ed ats ent enci ng, the def endant ’ s s ent ence w as notbas ed on thatr ange w ith in the inten d m en t of the s tatu te. ’” Id . at 15 5 (qu o ti n g C ara b all o , 5 5 2 F . 3 d at 10 ). I n N ovember2007, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on amended the cr ack c ocai ne gui del i nes , l ow er i ng the bas e off ens e l evel s forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es under§ 2D 1. 1© bytw o level s. S ee M at eo, 56 0 F . 3d at15 4. T he C om m i ssi on l at er decl ared that tho se amendm ent s appl i ed r etr oact i vel y , eff ect i ve as of M ar ch 3, 2008. See i d. ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, 515 F. 3d 207, 221 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I m por t ant l y , how ever , the cr ack coca i ne amendm ent s gener al l yw i l l notl ow erthe appl i cabl e G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange underU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( b) forcar eeroffe nder s . See M at eo, 560 F. 3d at154- 55. W hen the “r el evantal t ernat i ve off ens e l evel l i s t ed i n the t abl e atU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( b) i s hi gher th a n th e c a lcu late d o f

f e n se lev e l, § 4 B 1 .1 (b ) re q u ire s th a t th e h ig h e r o f f e n se lev e l sh a ll appl y . ” M at eo, 560 F. 3d at153. “Thatus ual l yw i l l be the ca s e, s i nce the ca r eeroffe nder gui del i ne ‘ s et s for th a t abul at i on of off ens e l evel s thatar e det erm i ned byr efe r ence t o t he s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence s author i zed f orvar i ous offe ns es of convi ct i on. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ar abal l o, 552 F. 3d 6, 10 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. V entur a, 3535

F .3 d 8 4 , 9 0 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) . D i Fi l i ppo’ s bas e off

ens e l evel as a ca r eeroffe nderunder§ 4B 1. 1( b) w as hi gher than the off

ens e l evel cal cul at ed under§ 2D 1. 1© . T her efor e, the hi gherl evel appl i ed, t he cr ack c ocai ne amendm ent s di d notaff ectD i Fi l i ppo’ s s ent enci ng r ange, and § 3582( c) ( 2) does notauthor i ze a s ent ence r educt i on. See M at eo, 560 F. 3d at155 ( s t at i ng thatthe cr ack c ocai ne amendm ent s “onl yaff ect [] cal cul at i on under§ 2D 1. 1© , and the l ow er i ng of the bas e off

ens e l evel under§ 2D 1. 1© has no eff ecton the appl i cat i on of the ca r eer o ff en d er o ff en se lev el req u ir ed b y§ 4 B 1 . 1 . ”). A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err in d e n y in g D iF ilip p o ’s m o tio n to re d u c e h is s e n te n c e . W e s h a ll a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .