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 8-19-2009 

# U SA v . Al an Grecco 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 . 08-4102

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 . Al an Gr e c c o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 799. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/799T he H onor abl e J an E. D uB oi s , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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 N o. 08- 4102 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. AL AN GR E CC 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 forthe D i s tr i ctC our tof N ew J er s ey D istri ct C o u rtN o . 2 -89 -cr-25 0 -2 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 26, 2009 B e f o re : B A R R Y , S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges a n d D u B O IS , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t19, 2009) OP I NI ON D u B o is , D is tr i ct

Judge. D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t A la n G re c c o w a s c o n v ic te d b yju ry o f v io la tin g , in tera lia ,I n U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , w e ques t i oned the 1 a c c u ra c yo f

re f e rr in g to U S S G § 1 B 1 .1 0 (c ) a m e n d m e n ts a s “ re tr o a c tiv e ” a m e n d m e n ts . I d. a t 2 2 0 n .1 0 . N e v e rth e les s, th e ter m is c o m m o n lyu se d to id e n tifyth o se a m e n d m e n ts w h ich m ayb e c o n side red b ythe d istri ct co u rtfo r pu rpo ses o f re d u cing a d ef en d an t’ s s e n te n c e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 564 F. 3d 305, 308 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. A hr endt , 5 6 0 F .3 d 6 9 , 7 8 n .7 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D unphy , 5 5 1 F .3 d 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 & n .2 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. R egalado , 5 1 8 F .3 d 1 4 3 , 1 5 0 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 the R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orruptO r gani zat i ons A ct( R I C O ) , 18 U . S. C . § 1962. B as ed i n parton a j uryfi ndi ng thatG r ecc o w as gui l tyof cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur der (th e th ird o f

six e n u m e ra ted ra c k e tee rin g a c ts), th e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d G re c c o to s i xty - fi ve y ear s i ncar cer at i on. O n di r ectappea l , w e af fi r m ed G r ecc o’ s convi ct i on and s e n te n c e . U

n itedS ta tes v . G a tto , 9 9 5 F . 2 d 4 4 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). O n February22, 2008, G r ecc o fi l ed a mot i on fors ent enci ng r el i ef pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . I n t he mot i on, G r ecc o ar gued thatA m endment591 t o the U ni t ed S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, liste d in U S S G § 1 B 1 .1 0 (c ) a s a re tro a c tiv e a m e n d m e n t, 1 i nval i dat ed the pr oces s byw hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tcal cul at ed hi s s ent ence and thathe sh o u ld b e re sen tenc ed u n d er a p rop erlyca lculated g u ideline ra n g e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ied G re c c o ’s m o tio n b yO rd e r d a ted S e p tem b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 . G re c c o a p p e a ls th a t d e n ial. I. O n J ul y20, 1989, G r ecc o and co- defe ndantL oui s G att o w er e cha r ged i n a s evenc o u n t In d ictm e n t w ith o p e ra tin g ill e g a l sp o rts a n d n u m b e rs g a m b lin g b u sin e ss e s in vi ol at i on of R I C O , 18 U . S. C . § 1962, the Tra vel A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 1952, and theO n A p ril 2 6 , 1 9 7 9 , M istre tta w a s a ttac k e d b ytw o m e n a n d sta b b e d re p e a ted ly 2 w ith a n ic e p ic k . M is tr e tta d ie d a s a re s u lt o f h is in ju ri e s . 3 O r gani zed Cri m e C ontr ol A ctof 1970, 18 U . S. C . § 1955. T he fi r s ttw o C ount s of the I n d i c t me n t , th e o n l yCo u n t s a ti s s u e i n th i s a p p e a l , a l l e g e d a c o n s p i r a c yt o v i o l a t e RI CO and s ubs t ant i ve vi ol at i ons of R I C O . T hos e C ount s enumer at ed s i x pr edi cat e ac t s as the bas i s fora patt ern of r acke t eer i ng act i vi tythatbegan i n 1973 and cont i nued thr ough t he fi l i ng dat e of the I ndi ctm enton J ul y20, 1989. T he onl yr el evantpr edi cat e ac tforthe p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l— R a c k e tee rin g A c t 3

— c h a rg e d d e f e n d a n ts w ith c o n sp irin g to m ur derV i ncentM i s tr ett a ( “M i s tr ett a”) . O n J une 19, 1991, an anonym ous j uryfound 2 defe ndant s gui l tyof al l pr edi cat e ac t s , i ncl udi ng R acke t eer i ng A ct3, and convi ct ed d e f e n d a n ts o n a ll C o u n ts o f th e In d ic tm e n t. G r ecc o w as s ent ence d on N ovember11, 1991. T he D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the fac tual fi ndi ngs and gui del i nes cal cul at i ons i n the Pr es ent ence R eport( “PSR ”) w hi ch, for G r ecc o’ s R I C O vi ol at i ons , began w i th U SSG § 2E 1. 1, the off ens e gui del i ne for “U nl aw ful C onductR el at i ng t o R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orruptO r gani zat i ons . ” ( A pp. 49; PSR ¶ 72. ) U SSG § 2E 1. 1 m andat es thatthe bas e off ens e l evel forR I C O offe ns es s hal l be the gr eat erof ei ther19 orthe “of fens e l evel appl i cabl e t o the under l y i ng r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty . ” I n det erm i ni ng the off ens e l evel appl i cabl e t o the under l y i ng ra c k e tee rin g a c tiv ity , the P S R a p p lied A p p lica tio n N o te 1 to U S S G § 2 E 1 .1 w h ich d ire c ts the courtt o “tr eateac h under l y i ng offe ns e as i f cont ai ned i n a s epar at e countofSent enci ng court s us e the edi t i on of the G ui del i nes i n eff ecton the dat e of 3 sent encing u nles s i ti s det erm i ned that the u se of t hat edi t i on w ou l d v i olat e t he E x P ost Fact o C l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 4) ; U SSG § 1B 1. 11; U ni t ed Stat es v. Menon , 2 4 F .3 d 5 5 0 , 5 6 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C i ans cewski , 894 F. 2d 74, 77 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . W her e the us e of the curr entedi t i on w oul d vi ol at e the E x PostFact o C l aus e, the s ent enci ng courtus es the edi t i on of the G ui del i nes i n eff ecton the dat e the off

ens e w as comm i t t ed. U SSG § 1B 1. 11. T he N ovember1, 1991 G ui del i nes w ere in ef

fe ct at th e d ate o f G rec co ’s sen tenc ing ; th e O ctob er 1 5 , 1 9 8 8 G u idelines w ere in e f f e c t a t th e te rm in a tio n o f th e R IC O c o n s p ir a c yo n J u ly 2 0 , 1 9 8 9 . In its o p in io n b e lo w , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt in c o rr e c tly sta te s th a t U S S G § 2 A 1 .1 4 in c lu d e d c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it m u rd e r a t th e tim e o f G re c c o ’s 1 9 9 1 se n ten c in g . In f a c t, U SSG § 2A 1. 5 w as i n eff ecton t he dat e of G r ecc o’ s s ent enci ng and cove r ed cons pi r acy to co m m itm u rde r. F u rth er, U S S G § 2 A 1 . 1 n ev er inc lud ed co n sp ir ac yto co m m itm u rde r. Pr i ort o A m endment311, as s t at ed i n the t extabove, cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur derw as i ncl uded i n the gui del i ne foratt empt ed murde r , U SSG § 2A 2. 1. A l though G r ecc o ar gues i n favorof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s vi ew of G ui del i nes hi s t ory , i ti s notr el evantt o the i ns t ant a p p e a l a n d i s o n l y m e n t i o n e d f o rp u rp o s e s o f

c l a r i ty. 4 convi ct i on. ” ForR acke t eer i ng A ct3, the under l y i ng offe ns e w as deemed t o be cons pi r acy to co m m itm u rde r. (P S R ¶ 8 5 . ) A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the part i es di s agr eed ove rthe edi t i on of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ”) w hi ch s houl d be us ed— O ct ober15, 1988 or N ovember1, 1991. A ts t ake w as A m endment311 ( eff ect i ve N ovember1, 1990) w hi ch, 3 in tera lia , added U SSG § 2A 1. 5 ( “C ons pi r acyorSol i ci t at i on t o C om m i tM ur der ”) t o t he H o m icid e su b p a rt o f

C h a p ter 2 . In e a rlier e d iti o n s o f th e G u id e lin e s, c o n sp ira c yto co m m itm u rde r w as in clud ed in U S S G § 2 A 2 . 1 (“A ssau ltW ith Inten t t o C o m m itM u rde r; C ons pi r acyorSol i ci t at i on t o C om m i tM ur der ; A t t empt ed M ur der ”) . T he ea r l i erver s i on 4 o f th e g u id e lin e f

o r c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it m u rd e r se t a b a se o f f e n se lev e l o f

2 0 , su b jec t to a numberof s peci fi c off ens e cha r act er i s t i cs ; the l at erver s i on s eta bas e off ens e l evel ofT h e p a rties a n d th e D istric t C o u rt in its o p in io n b e lo w h a v e c re a ted a c e rta in 5 amount of conf

us i on w i th r egar d t o the gui del i nes tr eatm entof R acke t eer i ng A ct3 at sent encing. G recco assert s that the D i stri ctC ou rtused U S S G § 2 A 1. 1 as t he o ffen se gui del i ne forcons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur der . T he governm entdi s agr ees and poi nt s t o a p o rt ion o f th e se n tenc ing tr an script w h ich, i n it s v iew , su g g ests that the D istri ct C o u rt u se d U S S G § 2 A 1 .1 b a se d o n a re lev a n t co n d u c t f in d in g th a t G re c c o m u rd e re d M istre tta i n fur ther ance of the cons pi r acyt o m ur derM i s tr ett a. W e not e thatthe r ecor d pr ovi des s cants uppor tforei therof thes e pos i t i ons . N everthel es s , the di s put e i s notr el evantfort he in sta n t ap p e a l b e c a u se th e p a rties a g re e (1 ) th a t R a c k e tee rin g A c t 3 w a s c o n sp ira c yto com m i tm urder, no tfi rs tdeg ree m urder, and (2) that the D i stri ctC ou rtsel ect ed the base offe ns e l evel i n U SSG § 2A 1. 1 byappl y i ng the U SSG § 2E 1. 1( a) ( 2) cr os s r efe r ence for “under l y i ng r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty . ” 5 2 8 a n d in c lu d e d a c ro s s re f e re n c e to th e f

ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r g u id e lin e , U S S G § 2 A 1 .1 (b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l 4 3 ), i n c a s e s w h e re “ th e o f f e n s e re s u lte d in th e d e a th o f a v ic tim .” C om pa re U S S G § 2 A 1 .5 (1 9 9 1 ), w ith U S S G § 2 A 2 .1 (1 9 8 8 ). A ts ent enci ng, G r ecc o obj ect ed t o the us e of the 1991 G ui del i nes on ex p o st fa c to gr ou nd s , a r gu i ng tha tthe hi gh e rba s e of fe ns e l e ve l i n USSG § 2 A 1. 5 a nd the U SSG § 2 A 1 . 5 (c)(1) c ross ref

ere n ce to f

ir st de g ree m u rde r m ad e the 1 9 9 1 G u idelines m o re s ever e than the 1988 G ui del i nes . T he D i s tr i ctC our trul ed thatA m endment311 di d not change the out come of t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s G ui del i nes cal cul at i ons , ( A pp. 46) , and ul t i m at el ydet erm i ned thatthe bas e off ens e l evel forR acke t eer i ng A ct3 w as 43, bas ed on U SSG § 2A 1. 1. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen adde d 4 l evel s underU SSG § 3B 1. 1( a) for 5 G r ecc o’ s r ol e i n t he off ens e. A l though the r es ul t i ng t ot al offe ns e l evel of 47 w oul d have l ed t o a l i fe s ent ence underthe G ui del i nes , the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a tw enty - y ear statu torym ax im u m sen tenc e f o r ea ch o f G rec co ’s R IC O co n v ict ion s (C o u n ts 1 a n d 2 ).W e not e thatG r ecc o’ s i ns t antpos i t i on— thatthe s ent enci ng courts houl d have 6 appl i ed U SSG § 2A 1. 5 ( 1991) ( bas e off ens e l evel 28)

— di r ect l yconfl i ct s w i th the p o sitio n G re c c o to o k a t th e o rig in a l se n ten c in g — th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt s hould not appl yU SSG § 2A 1. 5 ( 1991) . U nder s t andi ng the s hi fti n defe ndant ’ s ar gum entr equi r es c lo se r e x a m in a tio n o f

tw o f a c to rs. F irst, at th e 1 9 9 1 se n ten c in g , d e f e n d a n t w a s a rg u in g in favorof hi s pr opos ed al t ernat i ve, U SSG § 2A 2. 1 ( 1988) ( bas e off ens e l evel 20) , on ex p o st fa c to groun ds. D efen dan t ’s ex p o st fa c to a rg u m e n t w a s, h o w e v e r, re jec ted b yb o th th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a n d th is C o u rt . H e n o w a rg u e s f o r t h e a p p lic a tio n o f

U S S G § 2 A 1 .5 ( 19 91 ) i n a n e ff

ortt o a vo i d the pr ov i s i on ul t i mat e l yus e d b ythe s e nt e nc i ng c ou r t , U SSG § 2 A 1 .1 (b a se o f

f e n se lev e l 4 3 ). S e c o n d , d e f e n d a n t n o w p re se n ts a su b sid iar ya rg u m e n t, n o t p re se n ted a t th e o rig in a l se n ten c in g , tha t th e U S S G § 2 A 1 .5 (c )(1 ) c ro ss re f e re n c e to U SSG § 2A 1. 1 i s i nappl i cabl e i n t hi s cas e. A nys uch ar gum enti s compl et el yw i thout m er i ti n l i ghtof the fa ct , s t at ed i n t he PSR and adopt ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tatthe o ri g inal sen tenc ing , that G rec co ’s co n sp ir ac yto m u rde r M istrett a re su lt ed in M istrett a’s d e a th . (P S R ¶ 4 8 , 5 2 ; A p p . 4 9 .) A t se n ten c in g , d e f e n se c o u n se l w a s g iv e n a n o p p o rtu n ity to o b ject t o the f

ac tual fin d ing s in the P S R an d d id n o t do so . (A p p . 6 . ) 6 See U SSG § 5A ; 18 U . S. C . § 1963. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o s ent ence d G r ecc o t o the sta tu to rym a x im u m o n th e re m a in in g c o u n ts o f c o n v ictio n a n d o rd e re d th e se n ten c e s to ru n c o n se c u tiv e ly , lea d in g to a to tal s e n ten c e o f 6 5 y e a rs im p riso n m e n t. O n d ire c t ap p e a l, w e a f f ir m e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n s a n d s e n te n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. G a tto , 9 9 5 F .2 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 0 n .1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). O n February22, 2008, G r ecc o fi l ed a mot i on fors ent enci ng r el i ef pur s uantt o 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). I n h is m o ti o n an d o n ap p ea l, G rec co arg u es th at th e se n tenc ing co u rt “as s i gned U SSG § 2A 1. 1, fi r s tdegr ee mur der , as the gui del i ne for[the] under l y i ng ra c k e te e ri n g a c tiv ity, R a c k e te e ri n g A c t 3 , [ th e ] c o n s p ir a c yto m u rd e r V in c e n t M is tr e tta ,” b u t “s h o u ld h a v e a ss ig n e d [ U S S G ] § 2 A 1 .5 .” (A p p e llan t’s B r. 4 -5 .) A c c o rd in g to 6 G r ecc o, the court ’ s appl i cat i on of U SSG § 2A 1. 1 i ns t ead of U SSG § 2A 1. 5 contr avene s7

re tr o a c tiv e A m e n d m e n t 5 9 1 to th e G u id e lin e s . B yO pi ni on and O r derdat ed Sept ember26, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed G r ecc o’ s m ot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tes s ent i al l yas s um ed thati ts houl d have appl i ed U SSG § 2A 1. 5, butthen rul ed thatthe appl i cat i on of U SSG § 2A 1. 5 w oul d nothave change d G r ecc o’ s s ent enci ng r ange be caus e the dea th of M i s tr ett a, the obj ectof the c on s pi r a c yt o c omm i tmur de r , made the U SSG § 2 A 1. 5( c ) ( 1) c r os s r e fe r e nc e t o USSG § 2 A 1. 1 ap pli cable. (A pp . 3. ) Th e D i stri ctC ou rtreas on ed thatun der such cir cum st ances, the appr oach a dvocat ed byG r ecc o as A m endment591- compl i antw oul d notr es ul ti n a low er se n tenc ing ran g e, eli m inating the p o ssibil ityo f § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) se n tenc ing reli ef. In re a c h in g th is c o n c lu sio n , the D istric t C o u rt re lied o n a n o n -p re c e d e n tial o p in io n o f th is C o u rt , U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 2 0 5 F . A p p ’x 2 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (no n -pre ce d en ti al). T he governm entar gues , pr i m ar i l y , thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng s houl d be aff i r m ed on di ffe r entgr ounds . I n t he governm ent ’ s vi ew , A m endment591 does nothave an yim p ac t on the c alcu lat ion o f th e d ef en d an t’ s sen tenc e b ec au se th e se n tenc ing co u rt pr os pect i vel ycompl i ed w i th t he met hod pr es cr i bed byA m endment591. I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , defe ndant ’ s m ot i on fors ent enci ng r el i ef pur s uantt o § 3582( c) ( 2) w as pr oper l ydeni ed bec aus e A m endment591 di d notl ow erthe appl i cabl e s ent enci ng r ange o n w h ich d e f

e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e w a s b a se d . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o sitio n is a lig n e d w ith a n o th e r n o n -p re c e d e n tia l o p in io n o f th is C o u rt , U

n itedS ta tes v . S

p a ra c io , 3 1 2 F . A p p ’x 4 7 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( n o n -p re c e d e n tia l) .8

W e w ill a f

f ir m o n th e g ro u n d p ro p o s e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. II. W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s , in c lu d in g a m e n d m e n ts , de novo . U ni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 560 F. 3d 152, 154 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ood , 5 2 6 F . 3 d 8 2 , 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 )). A co u rt ’s ul t i m at e dec i s i on of w hethert o gr antordenya def endant ’ s m ot i on t o r educe hi s s ent ence u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) i s re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . I

d. a t1 5 4 & n. 2 . W e ma ya f f i r m a d is tr ic t c o u rt ru lin g o n a n yg ro u n d s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . Kabakj i an v. U ni t ed Stat es , 2 6 7 F . 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). O u r an aly sis be g ins w ith 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2), th e statuto ryb asis fo r G rec co ’s m o ti o n . S u b sec ti o n (c)(2) c rea tes an ex ce p ti o n to the g en era l ru le th at a d istri ct co u rt “m ayn o t m o d ifya term o f im p ri so n m en t on ce ith as b ee n im p o sed , ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c), a s f o llo w s: [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 low ere d b ythe S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 9 9 4 (o), upon m ot i on of the def

endantorthe D i r ect orof the B ur eau of Pr i s ons , oron i t s ow n m ot i on, the courtm ayr educe the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , aft er co n side ri n g the f

ac tors set fo rth in se cti o n 3 5 5 3 (a) to the ex tent that theyare appl i cabl e, i f s uch a r educt i on i s cons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e pol i cy s ta te m e n ts is s u e d b yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . I d. § 3582( c) ( 2) . A s w e have r ece nt l yhel d, defe ndant s s eeki ng s ent enci ng r el i ef pur s uant t o § 3582( c) ( 2) m us ts at i s fythe s ect i on’ s tw o el i gi bi l i tyr equi r ement s . “Fi r s t , the defe ndantm us thave be en ‘ s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng9

r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on; ’ and s econd, the s ent ence r educt i on m us tbe ‘ cons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ’ ” D oe , 564 F. 3d at309. W her e thes e r equi r ement s ar e not sati sfied , the d istri ct co u rtd o es n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to co n side r an yd iscreti o n ary re d u c tio n in s e n te n c e u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). I d. W i th r egar d t o t he fi r s tr equi r ement , w e have hel d thatthe phr as e “ba s ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed” mustbe r ead a s a uni tand thatt he t erm “‘ s ent enci ng r ange’ cl ear l ycont empl at es the end r es ul tof the over al l gui del i ne cal 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 . ” Mat eo , 560 F. 3d at155 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C a ra b a llo , 552 F. 3d 6, 10 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) ) . I n cas es w her e an a m endmentt o the G u idelines d o es n o t i m p ac t th e se n tenc ing ran g e “ ac tuallyu sed ” b ythe s en tenc ing co u rt in d e c id in g o n a d e f

e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e , § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) s e n te n c in g re lie f is n o t a v a ila b le . I

d. Forthe s econd r equi r ement , the “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” maybe found i n U SSG § 1B 1. 10. I n s ubs ect i on ( a) ( 2) of that pr ovi s i on, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on s peci fi es the condi t i ons underw hi ch “[ a] r educt i on i n t he def

endant ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm enti s notcons i s t entw i th [the Sent enci ng Co mmi s s i o n ’ s ] p o l i c ys t a t e me n ta n d th e r e f o r e i s n o ta u th o r i z e d u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2).” U S S G § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (a)(2). Sp ec ifi ca ll y , a re d u cti o n is no t auth o ri ze d w h ere “( A ) [n] one of the amendm ent s l i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) i s appl i cabl e t o the def endant ; orA l though t hi s C our thas di s t i ngui s hed betw een the 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) 7 r equi r ementthatthe def endant ’ s s ent ence be “ba s ed on a s ent enci ng r ange” thatw as s u b s e q u e n t l yl o we r e d b yth e S e n t e n c i n g Co mmi s s i o n a n d th e USS G § 1 B1 . 1 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) re q u ire m e n t th a t an a m e n d m e n 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 gui del i ne r ange, ” D oe , 564 F. 3d at310, thi s C our t ’ s anal y s i s of thos e tw o pr ovi s i ons 10 ( B ) [a] n amendm entl i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) does nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the defe ndant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” I d. T hes e l i m i t at i ons on the ava i l abi l i tyof § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) r e lie f

a re b in d in g . D oe , 5 6 4 F .3 d a t 3 1 0 ; see al so W ise , 515 F. 3d at221 & n . 1 1 (no ti n g that A m en d m en t 70 6 w o u ld n o t bec o m e a n ap p rop ri ate b asis fo r a § 3 58 2(c) (2) m oti on un t i l the ef fect i ve d at e of it s i nclusi on i n the U S S G § 1 B 1. 10 (c) l i st o f re tro a c tiv e a m e n d m e n ts); U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom

ps on , 7 0 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). Forpurpos es of U SSG § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B ) , the “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i s the s ent enci ng r ange a ctual l yus ed bythe s ent enci ng courtaft erfol l ow i ng the s er i es of s t eps la id o u t in U S S G § 1 B 1 .1 . D oe , 564 F. 3d at311- 12. T he pol i cys t at ement s i n U SSG § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) compl ementthe § 3582( c) ( 2) r equi r ementthata def

endanthave be en s ent ence d bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s u b s e q u e n tly b e e n lo w e re d . D oe , 564 F. 3d at310- 11. T he over ar chi ng rul e t o be der i ved fr om the § 3582( c) ( 2) r equi r ementand the U SSG § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) l i m i t at i ons i s that § 3 58 2( c ) ( 2) r e l i e f i s on l ya va i l a bl e w he r e a gu i de l i ne s a mend mentl i s t e d i n USSG § 1 B 1. 10 (c) has som e i m pact on t he en d resul tof the gu i deli nes cal culat i on process, lo w e rin g th e g u id e lin e ra n g e o r g u id e lin e se n ten c e a c tu a llyu se d b yth e trial c o u rt in s ent enci ng the def

endant . M or eover , thi s i s an el i gi bi l i tyrul e w hi ch pr ece des the

7re a c h e s th e s a m e re s u lt. D oe , 5 6 4 F .3 d a t 3 1 1 -1 2 ; M at eo , 560 F. 3d at155. F o r th e v e rsio n s o f

g u id e lin e p ro v isio n s th a t p re d a ted A m e n d m e n t 5 9 1 , w e w ill 8 r efe rt o the 1991 G ui del i nes w hi ch w er e i n eff ecton the dat e of G r ecc o’ s s ent enci ng. For the am end ed v ers i on s of t hese prov i si on s w e w i l l refert o the 200 0 G uidel i nes. 11 se n ten c in g c o u rt’s d isc re tio n a ryc o n sid e ra tio n o f w h e th e r a re d u c tio n in se n ten c e is w a rr a n te d in a p a rt ic u la r d e f e n d a n t’ s c a s e . D oe , 5 6 4 F .3 d a t 3 0 9 ; s ee W ise , 515 F. 3d at 2 2 0 n .1 0 (re f

e rrin g to § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) re lief in th e c o n tex t o f

“ q u a lify in g d e f

e n d a n t[ s]” ); s ee als o U ni t ed Stat es v. V

aut i er , 1 4 4 F .3 d 7 5 6 , 7 6 0 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); U n itedS ta tes v . W

y a tt , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 6 0 6 , 6 0 8 -09 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). I n t hi s cas e, G r ecc o bas es hi s § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on on A m endment591 t o the G ui del i nes , w hi ch bec ame effe ct i ve on N ovember1, 2000. W e cons i der ed A m endment 8 591 atl ength i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. D i az , 245 F. 3d 294 ( 3d C i r . 2001) t o det erm i ne w hether i ts h o u l d a p p l y r e tr o a c t i v e l y on appeal . W e conc l uded thatthe A m endmenteff ect ed a s ubs t ant i ve cha nge i n t he G ui del i nes and, ther efor e, coul d notbe appl i ed r etr oact i vel yon a p p e a l. I d. at303, 304. A l though t hi s cas e conc erns the r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of A m endment591 i n a di ffe r entcont ext , the ana l y s i s of the A m endmenti n D i azr emai ns in s tru c tiv e . Pr i ort o A m endment591, the G ui del i nes di r ect ed s ent enci ng court s t o det erm i ne the off ens e gui del i ne “most ” appl i cabl e t o the off ens e of c onvi ct i on and t o us e the S ta tu to ry In d e x (A p p e n d ix A ) f o r “ a s s is t[ a n c e ]” in th a t d e te rm in a tio n . See U SSG § § 1 B 1 .1 (a ), 1 B 2 .1 (a ) (1 9 9 1 ); D i az , 2 4 5 F . 3 d at 30 2 . T h e In tr o d u cti o n to the S tatu toryT h e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n id e n tifie d o n e n a rro w e x c e p tio n to th is g e n e ra l ru le 9 w h ic h is n o t r e le v a n t in th e in s ta n t c a s e . See U S S G § 1 B 1 . 2 (a). 12 I ndex r ei nfor ced a nd cl ar i fi ed thi s di r ect i ve, s t at i ng that“i n an atypi cal cas e, ” w her e “the gui del i ne s ect i on i ndi cat ed forthe s t atut e of c onvi ct i on i s i nappr opr i at e bec aus e of the part i cul arconducti nvol ved, us e the gui del i ne s ect i on m os tappl i cabl e t o the natur e of the offe ns e conduc tchar ged i n t he countof w hi ch the def endantw as convi ct ed. ” U SSG A pp. A , intro . (1 9 9 1 ); D i az , 2 4 5 F .3 d a t 3 0 2 . A m endment591 del et ed the perm i s s i ve l anguage quot ed above and s ubs t i tut ed m andat oryl anguage di r ect i ng the s ent enci ng courtt o “[r ] efe rt o the St atut oryI ndex ( A ppendi x A ) t o det erm i ne the C hapt erT w o offe ns e gui del i ne, r efe r ence d i n the S tatu to ryIn d e x f

o r th e o f f e n se o f c o n v ictio n .” U S S G § 1 B 2 .1 (a ) (2 0 0 0 ); D i az , 245 F. 3d a t 3 0 2 ; see al

so U S S G A p p . C , am e n d . 5 9 1 (N o v . 2 0 0 0 ) (d e letin g p e rm iss iv e lan g u a g e in U S S G § 1 B 1 .1 (a ), U S S G § 1 B 2 .1 (a ), an d th e In tro d u c tio n to th e S tatu to ryIn d e x ). A s th is C our tnot ed i n D i az , the S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n p ro m u lg a ted A m e n d m e n t 5 9 1 to

“ e m p h a siz e th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt m u st a p p ly the off

ens e gui del i ne r efe r ence d i n t he S ta tu to ry In d e x f

o r t h e s ta tu te o f

c o n v ic tio n .” D i az , 245 F. 3d at302 ( quot i ng U SSG A pp.

9 C , amend. 591, R eas on forA m endment( N ov. 2000) ) ( emphasi s i n D i az ). G rec co arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s us e o f U S S G § 2 A 1 . 1 (firstd eg ree m u rde r) i ns t ead of

U SSG § 2A 1. 5 ( cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur der ) vi ol at es A m endment591 b e c a u se th e R a c k e tee rin g A c t f o u n d b yth e ju ryw a s th e c o n sp ira c yto m u rd e r M istre tta13

and notthe s ubs t ant i ve off ens e. I n es s ence , G r ecc o obj ect s t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s us e of U SSG § 2A 1. 1 bas ed on anyr el evantconductfi ndi ng thatG r ecc o comm i t t ed fi r s tdegr ee m u rd e r o r, in d e e d , an yre lev a n t co n d u c t f in d in g th a t th e c o n sp ira c yto m u rd e r M istre tta re su lted in M istre tta’s d e a th su c h th a t th e U S S G § 2 A 1 .5 (c )(1 ) c ro ss re f e re n c e w o u ld a p p ly . A c c o rd in g to G re c c o , the u se o f re lev a n t co n d u c t f

in d in g s to se lec t an y“ a p p lica b le o f f e n se g u id e lin e ” ru n s a f

o u l o f A m e n d m e n t 5 9 1 re g a rd les s o f h o w th e se lec tio n f

its w ith in th e g u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n p ro c e s s . I n hi s br i ef, how ever , G r ecc o gi ves A m endment591 s hor ts hr i ft , r el y i ng i ns t ead on pr ovi s i ons of the G ui del i nes w hi ch w er e notaff ect ed byA m endment591. G r ecc o does notacc ountforthe fa ctthatthe i ni t i al offe ns e gui del i ne us ed bythe s ent enci ng courtfor hi s R I C O convi ct i ons — U SSG § 2E 1. 1— w as the one l i s t ed i n the St atut oryI ndex for v iolati o n s o f R IC O , 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 6 2 . (P S R ¶¶ 7 6 , 8 5 ); U S S G A p p . A . M o re i m por t ant l y , G r ecc o does notendea vort o expl ai n w hyA m endment591 s houl d have a ny i m pacton the s ent enci ng court ’ s appl i cat i on of the U SSG § 2E 1. 1( a) ( 2) cr os s r efe r ence for“under l y i ng r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty , ” s uch as the cons pi r acyt o m ur derM i s tr ett a. G recco’s argum ent fai l s t o ap preci at e t hat w hil e t he co nspir acyt o m urder M i strett a w as a pr edi cat e off

ens e forhi s R I C O convi ct i on and w as an “unde r l y i ng offe ns e” tr eat ed byt he D i s tr i ctC our t“as i f cont ai ned i n a s epar at e countof convi ct i on” forpurpos es of the U SSG § 2E 1. 1( a) ( 2) cr os s r efe r ence , i tw as notan off ens e of c onvi ct i on forA m endment 59 1 p urposes. G recco’s “un derl y i ng cri m i nal act i vity ” w as onlyrel evan tfor cross -14

re f e re n c in g , a f

u n c tio n n o t c o v e re d b yA m e n d m e n t 5 9 1 . A l though D i azdi d nots peci fi cal l yaddr es s the s cope of A m endment591, the A m end m ent i s cl earl yl i m i t ed to the sentenci ng cou rt ’s i nit i al sel ect i on of an off ense gui del i ne. B oth t he s tructur e and purpos e of the A m endments uppor tthi s concl us i on, and it is th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n th a t h a s b e e n re a c h e d b yo th e r c o u rt s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. H ur l ey , 3 7 4 F .3 d 3 8 , 4 0 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); U nited S tates v. R i vera , 293 F. 3d 584, 586- 87 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I ns truct i ons forappl y i ng the G ui del i nes appea ri n U SSG § 1B 1. 1 w hi ch pr es cr i bes a “ seq u en ce o f step s” to b e tak en b ythe s en tenc ing co u rtin ca lculati n g a d ef en d an t’ s g u id e lin e ra n g e o r g u id e lin e s e n te n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 155 F. 3d 682, 684 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); acco rd U

n itedS ta tes v . M

cD o w e ll , 888 F. 2d 285, 293 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . O nl yt he firsttw o step s are relev an t t o this ap p ea l. A t th e f ir st st ep in the p roc ess, a c o u rt d e ter m in e s th e a p p lica b le o f f e n se g u id e lin e se c tio n in C h a p ter T w o (O f f e n se C o n d u c t) fo r th e d ef

en d an t’ s statute o f c o n v ict ion b yco n su lt ing the S tatu toryInd ex (A p p en d ix A ). U SSG §§ 1B 1. 1( a) , 1B 1. 2( a) . A tthe s econd s t ep, des cr i bed i n U SSG § 1B 1. 1( b) , the c o u rt “ [ d ]e ter m in e [ s] th e b a se o f f e n se lev e l an d a p p l[ ies ] a n ya p p ro p ria te s e c tio n sp e c if ic o f f e n s e c h a ra c te ri s tic s , cr os s r ef er ence s , and s peci al i ns truct i ons cont ai ned i n the p a rticu lar g u id e lin e in C h a p ter T w o in th e o rd e r liste d .” U S S G § 1 B 1 .1 (b ) (e m p h a sis a dd e d) . Fors t e p tw o, a c ou r tmayc on s i de rr e l e va ntc on du c t , a s de fi ne d b yU SSG“R el evantconduct ” i s br oadl ydefi ned t o i ncl ude: “al l act s and omi s s i ons 10 comm i t t ed, ai ded, abett ed, couns el ed, comm anded, i nduced, pr ocur ed, orw i l l ful l ycaus ed b yth e d e f

e n d a n t; an d . . . in th e c a se o f jo in tlyu n d e rta k e n c rim in a l ac tiv ity. . . , a ll re a so n a b lyf

o re se e a b le a c ts a n d o m iss io n s o f o th e rs in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e jo in tly under t aken c r i m i nal act i vi ty , thatoccurr ed dur i ng the comm i s s i on of the off ens e of c o n v ictio n , in p re p a ra tio n f o r th a t o f f e n se , o r in th e c o u rse o f a ttem p tin g to a v o id det ect i on orr es pons i bi l i tyforthatoffe ns e; . . . al l harm thatr es ul t ed fr om [thos e] act s and om i s s i ons . . . , and al l harm thatw as the obj ectof s uch ac t s and omi s s i ons ; and . . . any otheri nform at i on s peci fi ed i n t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne. ” U SSG § 1B 1. 3. 15 § 1 B 1 . 3 , u n less o therw ise sp ec ifi ed b ythe G u idelines . U S S G § § 1 B 1 . 2 (b), 1B 1 . 3 (a);

10 U ni t ed Stat es v. A qui no , 5 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 7 -2 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); W at t ers on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 2 1 9 F . 3 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 5 -36 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A m endment591 r evi s ed U SSG § 1B 1. 1( a) , U SSG § 1B 1. 2( a) , A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1 t o U SSG § 1B 1. 2, and the I ntr oduct i on t o the St atut oryI ndex. U SSG A pp. C , amend. 591 (N o v . 2 0 0 0 ); D i az , 245 F. 3d at301- 02. A l l of thes e cha nges conce rn the fi r s ts t ep i n the gui del i nes appl i cat i on pr oces s . A m endment591 di d notm odi fyU SSG § 1B 1. 1( b) ( des cr i bi ng s t ep tw o) , U SSG § 1B 1. 2( b) ( author i zi ng the us e of r el evantconductaft er s t ep one) , orU SSG § 1B 1. 3 ( defi ni ng r el evantconduct ) . U SSG A pp. C , amend. 591 ( N ov. 2000) . T hus , al though A m endment591 r emoved t he perm i s s i ve l anguage thatgave s ent enci ng court s s om e fl exi bi l i tyi n s el ect i ng offe ns e gui del i nes bas ed on r el evant conductats t ep one, i tdi d noti nval i dat e the us e of r el evantconductforothers t eps i n the g u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n p ro c e s s . T he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s s t at ementof r eas ons w i th r egar d t o A m endment 591 confi r m s thi s i nt erpr et at i on. I n thats t at ement , the C om m i s s i on des cr i bed a pa r t i cul ar16

pr obl em t hati ti nt ended t o r emedyi n pr om ul gat i ng A m endment591, s peci fi cal l ythat vari ou s court s had rel i ed o n p re- A m end m ent l ang uag e t o d eviat e from the o ffen se gu i de l i ne s l i s t e d i n the St a tut oryI nd e x ( A pp e nd i x A) fo rs t a tut e s of c on vi c t i on . U SSG A p p . C , a m e n d . 5 9 1 , R e a s o n f o r A m e n d m e n t ( N o v . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c itin g , in tera lia , U ni t ed S ta tes v . Sm ith , 1 8 6 F .3 d 2 9 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 )); s ee D i az , 2 4 5 F .3 d a t 3 0 2 -0 3 ; H ur l ey , 374 F .3 d a t 4 0 -4 1 . T h e C o m m iss io n sp e c if ica llyn o ted th a t re lev a n t co n d u c t f in d in g s, w h ile in a p p ro p ria te w h e n re f

e rrin g to th e S tatu to ryIn d e x a t ste p o n e , n e v e rth e les s re m a in r el evantatot hers t eps underU SSG § 1B 1. 3( a) . U SSG A pp. C , amend. 591, R eas on for A m endment( N ov. 2000) . A tno poi ntdoes the C om m i s s i on s ugges tthatA m endment591 af fe cts, m u ch less inv ali d ates, th e a p p li ca ti o n o f c ross ref ere n ce s b ase d o n a c o u rt ’s re le v a n t c o n d u c t f

in d in g s . I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ys el ect ed the appr opr i at e off ens e gui del i ne forthe s t atut e of c onvi ct i on us i ng the St atut oryI ndex. B efor e A m endment591, the St a tut oryI nd e x “ pr ov i d[ e d] a l i s t i ng t o a s s i s t ” the D i s tr i c tCour ti n s e l e c t i ng U SSG § 2E 1. 1 as the appr opr i at e off ens e gui del i ne forvi ol at i ons of R I C O , 18 U . S. C . § 1962; A ft erA m endment591, the St atut oryI ndex “c oncl us i vel ypoi nt [ed] ” t o U SSG § 2E 1. 1 as the off ens e gui del i ne forG r ecc o’ s R I C O convi ct i on. T he r es ul t , how ever , i s the s ame, and the A m endment591 anal y s i s s t ops ther e. B eca us e A m endment591 does noti m pact the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ubs equentappl i cat i on of the U SSG § 2E 1. 1( a) ( 2) cr os s r efe r ence for

“ u n d e rly in g ra c k e tee rin g a c tiv ity ,” it h a s n o b e a rin g o n th e se n ten c in g e rro rs a lleg e d in17

G r ecc o’ s m ot i on and, ther efor e, pr ovi des no bas i s fora r educt i on i n G r ecc o’ s s ent ence p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). III . F o r all o f th e f

o reg o ing rea so n s, w e c o n clud e tha t G rec co w as n o t el igible f o r a sen tenc e re d u cti o n u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2), an d that, as a resu lt , the D istri ct C o u rt l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o gr antthe r el i ef r eques t ed i n hi s m ot i on. T hus , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng G r ecc o’ s § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on.