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 6-10-2009 

# U SA v . P e rc y D i llon 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 . 08-3397

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 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 . P e r c y Di llon" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1201. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/12011 NOT 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

_____________ No. 08-3397

_____________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

v. PERC Y DILL ON, Appellant O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 93- cr - 0084) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

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

M ay19 , 2009 B efore: F U E N T E S , JO R D A N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 10, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: P e rc yD ill o n a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s p a rtial d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to re d u c e h is s ent ence pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . I n 2008, the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ngT hi s G ui del i nes R ange i ncl udes the mandat orycons ecut i ve 60- m onth s ent ence 1 fo r th e f ir ea rm s o ff

en se. S e e 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c)(1). 2 C o m m issi o n am en d ed the U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines (“G u idelines ”), r etr oact i vel yr educi ng t he bas e off ens e l evel forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt su b se q u e n tlye n ter e d a n o rd e r re d u c in g D ill o n ’s s e n ten c e b ytw o -le v e ls, b u t h e ld t hati tl acke d author i t yt o r educe D i l l on’ s s ent ence fur t her . D i l l on ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ct C our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o r ecogni ze thatU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) gave i ts u c h a u t h o r i t y . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. I f B ookerdi d appl yi n pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o § 3582, D i l l on w oul d l i kel ybe an i deal candi dat e fora non- G ui del i nes s ent ence . I n 1993, D i l l on w as convi ct ed of cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e more t han 500 gr ams of coc ai ne and mor e than 50 gr ams of coca i ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846; us e of a fi r earm dur i ng a drug tr aff i cki ng crim e in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c)(1); an d p o sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te m o re th a n 5 0 0 g ra m s o f

c o c a in e in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). A t th e tim e , the D istric t C o u rt c a lcu late d D ill o n ’s o f f e n se lev e l to b e 3 8 a n d h is cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryt o be I I . D i l l on r ece i ved tw o cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s ; one for m i sdem eano r m ari

j uan a po sses si on and on e for m i sdem eano r r esi st i ng arr est . T hu s, D i l l on ’s G uidel i nes R ang e w as 322 t o 3 87 m on ths. 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d D i l l on t o t he bot t om of the G ui del i nes R ange, 3223

m ont hs . H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr epea t edl ys t at ed thati tw as cons t r ai ned bythe G u idelines to im p o se w h at i t believe d to b e a n u n rea so n ab le sen tenc e. A t D il lon ’s or i gi nal s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed: “I per s onal l ydon’ tbel i eve thaty ou s houl d be s ervi ng 322 m ont hs [, b] utI fee l I am bound bythos e G ui del i nes . . . ” A pp. at 9 9 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n ti n u ed : “I do n ’tsayto y o u that thes e p en alt ies are f air. I do n ’t t hi nk t heyar e fa i r . I t hi nk t heyar e ent i r el yt oo hi gh forthe cr i m e y ou have c om m i t t ed even though i ti s a s er i ous cr i m e. ” I d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o not ed thati tbel i eved D i l l on’ s s ent ence t o be unr eas onabl e i n i t s St at ementof R eas ons : “[T] he gui del i nes r ange i s unfai rt o t he def

endant . T he C our t , how ever , i s bound bythe gui del i nes r ange. ” A pp. a t 5 . F oll ow i ng t he ch ang e i n the cr ack co cai ne o ffen se l evel, D i l l on fi l ed a p ro se m o tio n f o r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt re c a lcu late d D ill o n ’s o f f e n se lev e l to b e 3 6 an d red u ce d D il lon ’s sen tenc e to 2 7 0 m o n ths. D il lon arg u ed that the D istri ct C o u rt s houl d appl yB ookeri n r es ent enci ng hi m , butthe D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatB ookerdi d not a p p ly an d th a t it la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to d o g ra n t m o re th a n a 2 -l e v e l s e n te n c e re d u c tio n . II. A c o u r tg e n e r a l l yma yn o tmo d i f ya t e r m o f

i mp r i s o n me n to n c e i th a s b e c o me f in a l. 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c ). H o w e v e r, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) p ro v id e s th a t: i n t he ca s e of a defe ndantw ho has been s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen lo w e re d b yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . 9 9 4 ( o ) . . . the c o u rtm ayred u ce the term o f im p ri so n m en t, af ter co n side ri n g the f

ac tors4

s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3553( a) t o t he ext entthattheyar e appl i cabl e, i f s uch a r educt i on i s cons i s t entw i t h appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. In B o o k er, th e S u p rem e C o u rtco n clud ed that the S ixth A m en d m en t r eq u ir es a jury t o fi nd t he fa ct s t hates t abl i s h a mandat oryfl ooron a def endant ’ s s ent ence . 543 U . S. at 229, 244. Fol l ow i ng B ooker , a s ent enci ng courtm us tcal cul at e a de fenda nt ’ s G ui del i nes ra n g e , b u t m a yo n lyu se th a t ra n g e a s a sta rtin g p o in t f o r d e ter m in in g a re a so n a b le s e n te n c e b a s e d o n a n in d iv id u a liz e d a s s e s s m e n t o f th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) . G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 586, 596- 97 ( 2007) . D i l l on ar gues thata di s tr i ct cour tadj us t i ng a s ent ence pur s uantt o § 3582( c) m us tal s o t r eatthe amended G ui del i nes r ange a s advi s or y , and i m pos e a s ent ence bas ed on the pr ocedur es s etfor t h i n t he B ooker lin e o f c a s e s . W e have hel d t hatB ookerdoes noteff ectel i gi bi l i t yfora § 3582( c) s ent ence r educt i on. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. D oe, 564 F. 3d 305 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng that d ef en d an ts’ w h o rec eive d su b stan ti al assist an ce d ep artures b elow the s tatu torym an d atory m i ni m um w er e notel i gi bl e forr educt i on) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M at eo, 560 F. 3d 152, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng t hatdefe ndants ent ence d bas ed on ca r eeroffe nderG ui del i nes R ange w a s n o t e lig ib le f

o r r e d u c tio n a s a re s u lt o f th e c ra c k c o c a in e a m e n d m e n t) . T hough, w e have noty etw r i t t en pr ece dent i al l yon w hetherB ookergi ves a di s tr i ct cour tauthor i t yt o gi ve a de fenda ntw ho i s el i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on under§ 3582 a n a d d itio n a l r e d u c tio n , o u r r e a s o n in g in th e e lig ib ility c a s e s a ls o a p p lie s in th is c o n te x t.5

In th e c o n tex t o f

e lig ib ili tyf

o r a § 3 5 8 2 se n ten c e re d u c tio n w e e x p lain e d th a t: N o w h ere in B o o k er d id the S u p rem e C o u rtm en ti o n § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). B eca us e § 3582( c) ( 2) pr ocee di ngs m ayonl yr educe a def endant ’ s s ent ence and noti ncr eas e i t , t he cons t i tut i onal hol di ng i n B ookerdoes notappl yt o § 3582( c) ( 2) . See B ooker , 543 U . S. at244. A ddi t i onal l y , the r emedi al hol di ng i n B ookeri nval i dat ed onl y18 U . S. C . § 3553( b) ( 1) , w hi ch made t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes m andat oryforful l s ent enci ngs , and § 3742( e) , w hi ch di r ect ed appe l l at e court s t o appl ya de novo s t andar d of r evi ew t o departur es fr om t he G ui del i nes . T her efor e, B ookerappl i es t o ful l s ent enci ng hear i ngs –w hetheri n an i ni t i al s ent enci ng ori n a r es ent enci ng w her e the or i gi nal s ent ence i s vaca t ed forerr or , butnott o s ent ence m odi fi cat i on pr ocee di ngs under§ 3582( c) ( 2) . N otonl yar e s ent ence m odi fi cat i on pr ocee di ngs s anct i oned undera di ffe r ents ect i on of the s t atut e than thos e at i s s ue i n B ooker , butt he B ookercour thel d t hat“[w ] i t h t hes e tw o s ect i ons e x c ise d (a n d sta tu to ryc ro ss -re f e re n c e s to th e tw o se c tio n s c o n se q u e n tly i nval i dat ed) , t he r emai nderof the A cts at i s fi es the C our t ' s cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s . ” B ooker , 543 U . S. at259. Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) cont ai ns no cr os s - r efe r ence t o § 3553( b) and ther efor e w as notaff ect ed byB ooker . N or i s t her e anyt hi ng el s e i n B ookerthatdi r ect l yaddr es s es § 3582( c) p ro c e e d in g s .

. . . . N ot hi ng i n B ookerpurpor t ed t o obvi at e the congr es s i onal di r ect i ve i n § 3582( c) ( 2) t hata s ent ence r educt i on pur s uantt o t hats ect i on be cons i s t entw i t h Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pol i cys t at ement s . T he l anguage of § 3582( c) ( 2) coul d notbe cl ear er : the s t atut e pr edi cat es author i t yt o r educe a def endant ’ s s ent ence on cons i s t enc[ y ] w i t h the pol i cys t at ement , and the pol i cys t at ementpr ovi des t hata r educt i on i s notcons i s t enti f the a m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t h a v e th e e f f e c t o f lo w e rin g th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a p p lica b le G ui del i ne r ange. T he G ui del i nes ar e no l ongerm andat ory , butthatdoes not render opti on al st atutorydir ect i ves.

. . . . B eca us e U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10 i s bi ndi ng on t he D i s t r i ctC our tpur s uant t o § 3582( c) ( 2) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thati tl acke d t he a u th o ri ty to f

u rt h e r r e d u c e th e A p p e lla n ts ’ s e n te n c e s . Do e , 5 6 4 F . 3 d a t3 1 2 - 1 4 ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . F o rth e s a me6

r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatB ookerdoes notappl yt o t he s i ze of a s ent ence r educt i on that m a yb e g ra n te d u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). I n doi ng s o, w e ar e j oi ned bythe overw hel m i ng m aj or i t yof ours i s t erC our t s of A ppeal s . See U ni t ed St at es v. Fanfan, 558 F. 3d 105 ( 1s tC i r . 2009) ( hol di ng thatB ooker d o es n o t app ly ); U n it ed S tat es v . D u n p h y , 5 5 1 F . 3 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 4 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (sam e); U ni t ed St at es v. C unni ngham, 554 F. 3d 703, 705 ( 7th C i r . 2009) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. St arks , 551 F. 3d 839, 842 ( 8t h C i r . 2009) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R hodes , 549 F. 3d 833, 840 ( 10t h C i r . 2008) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M el vi n, 556 F. 3d 1190 ( 11t h C i r . 2009) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Savoy , — F. 3d— , 2009 W L 1457976, *2 ( 2d C i r . 2009) , buts ee U ni t ed St at es v. H i cks , 472 F. 3d 1167 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng thatB ookerabol i s hed the m an d atoryn ature o f th e G u idelines in all con texts). D il lon also arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in ca lculati n g h is cri m inal h ist o ry s cor e. H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our thad no author i t yt o r econs i deri t s pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t or ydet erm i nat i on. See, e. g. , M at eo, 560 F. 3d at156. III . B e c a u se B o o k e r d o e s n o t ap p lyin § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) p ro c e e d in g s, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o te r ri n d e n y i n g D i l l o n ’ s m o t i o n f o ra r e d u c t i o n b e l o w h i s n e w G u i d e l i n e s R a n g e . We 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.