2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-2-2015

USA v. Donald Jones

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This June 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 2015 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. Donald Jones" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 546.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/546
DLD-224 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3488

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DONALD JONES,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 08-cr-00007-001)

District Judge: Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 28, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 2, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Donald Jones pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine with the intent 

to distribute it and related charges and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment in 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

September 2008. Jones was subject to a then-10-year statutory mandatory minimum term 

because 36.98 grams of crack cocaine were involved in his crimes and he had a prior 

felony drug conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). His sentence was 

affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Jones, C.A. No. 08-4111 (order entered Mar. 

18, 2009).

Jones mounted multiple unsuccessful post-conviction challenges to his sentence. 

As relevant here, on July 14, 2014, Jones requested reduction of his sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on recent amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The 

District Court denied the motion. Jones timely appealed. The Government has requested 

that we summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise 

plenary review of the District Court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and 

review the denial of Jones’ § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s 

decision if an appeal presents no substantial question. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant “who has been sentenced 

to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). A reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if the change to the 

Sentencing Guidelines “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable 
3

guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., 

a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) & cmt. n.1(A); see United States v. Ortiz-Vega, 

744 F.3d 869, 873 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[I]f a defendant is subjected to a mandatory 

minimum, he or she would not be given a sentence ‘based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered.’”)

In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”) increased the quantity of crack cocaine 

necessary to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum for prior felony drug offenders from 

5 grams to 28 grams. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). The Sentencing Commission 

promulgated amendments to conform the Guidelines to the FSA and to make the changes 

apply retroactively. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amends. 750, 759 (2011).1 Additionally, 

Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, which came into effect on November 1, 2014, and has 

been applied retroactively, reduced by two the base offense levels assigned to specific 

drug quantities. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) & app. C. supp., amends. 782, 788 (2014). 

 

1 Although Jones cites Amendment 706, it went into effect on November 1, 2007, almost 

one year before Jones’ September 2008 sentencing. Thus, even if a mandatory minimum 

sentence were not at issue, Jones would be ineligible for a sentence reduction based on 

Amendment 706. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting court to reduce a sentence 

where the applicable sentencing range was “subsequently” lowered). Jones also 

references Amendments 746 and 748, neither of which provides a basis for reducing his 

sentence. Amendment 746 made only technical and conforming changes to provisions 

relevant to drug offenses, and Amendment 748 made temporary changes that were 

permanently re-promulgated, and thus mooted, by Amendment 750. See U.S.S.G. app. 

C, amends. 746, 748 (2010); U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750 (2011).
4

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’ request for a 

reduced sentence under the FSA and amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. See

Mateo, 560 F.3d at 154. The FSA, which went into effect in 2010, does not apply 

retroactively to Jones, who was sentenced in 2008. See United States v. Reevey, 631 

F.3d 110, 115 (3d Cir. 2010). The Sentencing Commission, however, has exercised its 

authority to make various of its amendments to the Guidelines—including its changes in 

response to the FSA—retroactive. See United States v. Curet, 670 F.3d 296, 309–10 (1st 

Cir. 2012). Nevertheless, Jones cannot benefit from the Guideline amendments he cites. 

They do not “have the effect of lowering [his] applicable guideline range” because he 

was sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum term. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). 

Contrary to Jones’ claim, our decision in Ortiz-Vega does not indicate otherwise. 

The prisoner in Ortiz-Vega was held to be eligible for a sentence reduction because—

although he would have received a mandatory minimum sentence but for court error—he

in fact received a sentence lower than the minimum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) 

(2006); Ortiz-Vega, 744 F.3d at 871. Jones, by contrast, received the statutory minimum 

term. Unlike the exceptional scenario presented in Ortiz-Vega, therefore, Jones’ 

mandatory-minimum sentence cannot subsequently be lowered by a change to his 

guideline range within the meaning of § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). 

Accordingly, because we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial 

question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.