2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-28-2010

USA v. Montgomery

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-2074

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision 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 2010 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. Montgomery" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 374.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/374
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 08-2074 

___________ 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

NATHANIEL MONTGOMERY, 

Appellant 

___________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. No. 2-02-cr-00172-020) 

___________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

on October 7, 2010 

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 28, 2010) 

___________ 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

___________ 

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

Nathaniel Montgomery appeals from a decision of the District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which denied his motion to reduce the sentence he is 

serving for crack and powder cocaine offenses. He contends that we should reverse the 
2

District Court’s denial of his “Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2),” both because of recent amendments to the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines, and because the District Court denied his Motion without first holding an 

evidentiary hearing. His contentions are foreclosed by federal statute and by United 

States v. Styer, 573 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2009), and accordingly we will affirm.1

I. 

 Because we write for the parties, who are familiar with the events that gave rise to 

this appeal, we state the facts and District Court proceedings only as necessary to explain 

our reasoning. A jury convicted Montgomery of conspiracy to distribute crack and 

powder cocaine. At sentencing, the Court determined that he was responsible for 

distributing more than 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine and, separately, more than 

150 kilograms of powder cocaine. Each finding was an independent basis for 

Montgomery’s base offense level of 38 under the Guidelines. After Montgomery’s 

incarceration began, Congress reduced the sentencing range for crack (but not powder) 

cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2007); id. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 706. He 

filed a “Motion for Reduction of Sentence,” and requested an evidentiary hearing, but the 

District Court denied the Motion and the hearing on the ground that his powder cocaine 

conviction independently supported his sentence. Montgomery appealed. 

II. 

We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines. United States 

 1

 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231, 

and 3582(c)(2). We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 
3

v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009). We review a district court’s denial of a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, as well as a district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing, for 

abuse of discretion. Styer, 573 F.3d at 153-154. We review for plain error nonjurisdictional issues a party raises for the first time on appeal. United States v. Vazquez, 

271 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc). 

III. 

The District Court correctly denied Montgomery’s Motion, because he did not 

make a prima facie case for relief under § 3582(c)(2). Because the Motion failed as a 

matter of law, the Court was within its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing 

before ruling upon it. We therefore will affirm its decisions in all respects. 

A. 

Montgomery appeals from a denial of his “Motion for Reduction of Sentence 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes district courts to 

reduce an otherwise final sentence if it is “based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Montgomery’s conviction 

does not qualify because his sentencing range is unaffected by the amendment. The more 

than 150 kilograms of powder cocaine for which he was responsible supports his base 

offense level, wholly apart from any changes to the Crack Cocaine Guidelines range. 

Because the amendments did not lower Montgomery’s sentencing range, the Court 

correctly rejected his claim that they entitle him to a reduction. 

B. 

Montgomery also challenges the District Court’s decision to deny his Motion 
4

without holding an evidentiary hearing. He appears to raise this issue for the first time on 

appeal, as it does not appear that he requested an evidentiary hearing in the District 

Court, nor did he object to the Court’s decision to rule without one. Accordingly, we 

review the record for plain error only, Vazquez, 271 F.3d at 99, and we affirm because a 

hearing would not have changed the result in this case. Even assuming he did preserve 

the issue, however, we would affirm the District Court. A defendant who moves to have 

his sentence reduced is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing; whether to hold one is at 

the discretion of the trial court. Styer, 573 F.3d at 153. In this case, the Court needed no 

hearing, because there was no evidentiary issue to resolve – § 3582(c)(2) foreclosed 

Montgomery’s Motion, as a matter of law. Because there was no need for a hearing, the 

District Court acted within its discretion in declining to hold one. 

* * * * * 

We hold that the District Court did not err in denying Montgomery’s § 3582(c)(2) 

Motion, and that it acted within its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing 

in this case. The judgment of the District Court will be AFFIRMED.