2005 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 4-29-2005 

# U SA v . T ur ne r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2060

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . T ur ne r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1295. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1295NOT 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. 04- 2060 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L E R O Y T U R N E R , J R ., A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt fo r t h e D ist ri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 99- cr - 00014- 4) D ist ri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr. Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 18, 2005 B efore: R E N D E L L , A L D ISE R T , and M A G ILL *, C i rcui t Judg es.

( Fi l ed : A pr i l 29, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui t J udge. De fe ndant

Le r oy Turne r pl e d gui l ty

t o c ons pi r a c y

t o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , and, on

*H onor abl e Fr ank J . M agi l l , Seni or C i r cui t J udge fort he Ei ght h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.T ur nerhas not chal l enged hi s convi ct i on. 1 2 Jul y 7, 1999, wa s s e nt e nc e d by the Di s tr i c t

Court t o 188 m onths ’ i m

pr i s onm e nt . The se ntence was the m axim

um of the a pp li ca ble 151 -188 m on th rang e bas ed ona t otal offe ns e l e ve l of 29 ( Turne r ’ s pl e as t i pul at e d t o aba s e offe ns e l e ve l of 34; he r e c e i ve d a thr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on for

a c c e pt anc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty and atwo- l e ve l r e duc t i on for m i nor p articip atio n ) an dC rim in al H isto ry C ateg o ry V I. On appe a l , Turne r

ar gue s that

Am e ndm e nt

640 t o the Uni t e d St at e s Se nt e nc i ng Gui de l i ne s , whi c h t ook e ffe c t on Nove m

be r 1, 2002 and c appe d the ba s e offe ns e l e ve l of m inor part ic ipant drug o ff enders at 30 , s ho uld app ly

to him . Turner urges t

hat A m en dm en t 6 4 0 is a clarif yin g , as o p p o sedto sub stan tiv e, am en dm en t, an dthu s sh o u ld ap p ly retro activ ely ; th eref

o re, h e requ ests th at h is sen ten ce b e v acatedan dth e case rem an d edf

o r n ewsen ten cin g th at ref lects th e ch an g e ef

f ectedb y A m en dm en t 6 4 0 . T u rne r also c h all en g es h is sen tenc e u n d er U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , __ U . S. __, 160 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). H avi ng concl uded t hatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues A p p e llan t ra ise s a re b e st d e ter m in e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt in th e f irst in sta n c e , w e w ill
vaca t e t he s ent ence and r emand for r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker . Befo re 1 doi ng s o, howe ve r , we wi l l a ddr e s s the gui de l i ne i s s ue r a i s e d by Turne r s o a s t o pr ovi de gui danc e t o the Di s tr i c t

Court on r e m and a s t o i t s pr ope r appl i c at i on. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d rev iew the D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s i nterpret at i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes de novo . U ni t ed St at es v. B ut ch , 256 F. 3dA l t hough, fol l ow i ng t he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece nt deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 2 __ U . S. __, 160 L . E d. 2d 621, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes i s not m andat or y , di s t r i ctcour t s m us t s t i l l cons ul t t he gui del i nes i n m aki ng s ent enci ng d e ter m in a tio n s. T h e re f o re , itre m a in s n e c e ss a ryf o r th is C o u rt to re so lv e T u rn e r’s c laim re g a rd in g th e c o rr e c t in te rp re ta tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s . 3 1 7 1 , 1 7 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 2 I t i s an e s t abl i s he d pr i nc i pl e that apos t - s e nt e nc i ng am e ndm e nt t o as e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne or

i t s c omm e nt s s houl d be gi ve n e ffe c t i f i t “ c l ar i fi e s ” the gui de l i ne or co mm en t inp lace at th e tim e o f sen ten cin g . Wh ere, h o w ev er, th e am en dm en t ef f ects a substantive c hang e i n the law, the defendant do es no t r ea p the benefit of the new p ro v isio n . See U .S . S en ten cin g G u id elin es M anu al § 1 B 1 .1 1 (b )(2 ) (1 9 9 8 ); Un ited States v . Marmole

j os , 140 F. 3d 488, 4991 ( 3d Ci r . 1998) ( c i t i ng Is ab el v. Un ited States , 980 F. 2d 60, 62 ( 1s t

Ci r . 1992) ( hol di ng that

thi s i s the r

ul e i n “ vi rt

ua l l y a l l c i r c ui t s ” ) . The g o v ern m en t co n ten d s th at A m en dm en t 6 4 0 is sub stan tiv e, n o t clarif yin g , an dth at, ac cordingly , i t s ho uld n ot apply re tr oact ivel y ; t

hu s, it ar gu es , App el lant’s se ntence appr opr i at e l y

r e fl e c t s the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne s . The gove rnm e nt not e s that

Am e ndm e nt 6 4 0 is n o t listedinU .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (c) (N o v . 2 0 0 2 ) am o n g th e m o re th antw en ty am e ndm e nt s de e m e d t o have r e tr oa c t i ve e ffe c t , but a l s o c onc e de s that

i t s abs e nc e fr om the l i s t i s not di s pos i t i ve – as e nt e nc i ng c ourt m ay s t i l l r e duc e ade fe ndant ’ s t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt

t o gi ve e ffe c t

t o l at e r c hange s i f i t

fi r s t c ons i de r s the r e l e vant

s e nt e nc i ng f acto rs, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a), an dad d itio n ally co n clu d es th at su cha redu ctio nis c ons i s t e nt wi th appl i c abl e pol i c y

s t at e m e nt s i s s ue d by

the Se nt e nc i ng Comm i s s i on. 18B uts ee U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a ) (“ If n o n e o f th e a m e n d m e n ts liste d in su b se c tio n (c ) is 3 a p p lic a b le , a re d u c tio n in th e d e f e n d a n t’ s te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) is no t con sist en t w ith this po li cy stat em en t and thu s is no t auth o ri ze d . ”); A p p lic a tio n N o te s to U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (“ E lig ib ility f o r c o n s id e ra tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3582( c) ( 2) i s t r i gger ed onl ybyan amendm entl i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) t hatl ow er s t he a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e .” ). 4 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). Se eal s o Marmole

j os , 140 F.3dat

49 1 (“Yet

the l aw is cl ear that

‘ c ourt s c an gi ve r e tr oa c t i ve e ffe c t t o ac l ar i fyi ng ( a s oppos e d t o s ubs t ant i ve ) am e ndm e nt r e gar dl e s s of whe the r

i t i s l i s t e d i n U. S. S. G. § 1B1. 10’ ” ( quot i ng Un ited States v. C a p ers , 61 F .3d 1 10 0, 11 09 (4th Cir. 19 95 )) ). 3 I n Marmole

j os we held an am endm ent s tati ng that se ntence s wou ld be ca lc ulat ed wi th r e fe r e nc e t o the am ount of dr ugs a c t ua l l y de l i ve r e d – r athe r

than by r e fe r e nc e t o the weight of the drug sal e he had nego ti at ed – to b e c lari fying andto le ndre solve t o an am bi gui ty . He r e , howe ve r , Am e ndm e nt 640 i s not

c ons i s t e nt

wi th the gui de l i ne c omm e nt ary

i n e ffe c t at the t i m e of Turne r ’ s s e nt e nc i ng. S ee U n ited Sta tes v. B erto li , 40 F .3 d1 3 8 4 , 1 4 0 5 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (ex p lain in g th at co urts m u st lo o kto see “w h eth er, as a m atter o f co n stru ctio n , th e g u id elin e an dco mm en tary inef f ect at th at tim e is really consis te nt with the am ended m anual” ). Befo re Am endm ent 640 , the base of fense l evel fo r an o ff ender l ike Turner was t

hat “ spec ifie d in the Drug Qu anti ty Table” wh er ea s a fter a dopt i on of Am e ndm e nt

640, the ba s e offe ns e l e ve l wa s that “ s pe c i fi e d i n the Dr

ug Quant i ty Tabl e . . . e xc e pt

that i f the de fe ndant

r e c e i ve s an a djus tm e nt

[for m i t i gat i ng r ol e ], the ba s e offe ns e l e ve l unde r thi s s ubs e c t i on s houl d not be m or e than 30. ” Though5

thi s am e ndm e nt

c l e ar l y r e s ponds t o c onc e rns ove r the har s hne s s of dr

ug s e nt e nc i ng for those who play

m inim alrole s, it

do es no t “ filla void” or “re solve an am bigu it y”; rather , i t a dds as ubs t ant i ve c om

pone nt . The r e for e , we c onc l ude Am e ndm e nt 640 of the g u id elin es is sub stan tiv e an dn o t to b e g iv enretro activ e ef f ect. I n l i ght of t he for egoi ng w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand for r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance
w i t h B ookera n d th is o p in io n .