The Honor able Curtis L . Colli er, Chief United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0765n.06 No. 09-5710 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J AY JOS EPH BROWN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : GI L MAN, and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and COL L I ER, Chief District J udg e. *
CURTIS L. COLL IER, Chief District Judge . Def

endant- Appellant Jay

J oseph B rown (“B rown” ) appe als the district court’ s order denying r elief pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) , which perm i t s m o d i fi cation of a term of imprisonment that was “ based on a sentenc ing r ang e that has subsequently

been lowe red by

the Sen t en ci n g Commi ssion.” The district cour t denied such a reduc tion under Amendme nts 706 and 713 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“ USSG”), concluding , beca

use B rown’s se ntencing rang e was based on his status as a care er of fende r and not beca use his offe nse involved coc aine base, he was inelig ible for r elief. The parties have wa ived ora l09-5710

Un ite d S tat es v . J ay J os e ph Br own

- 2 - argume nt a

nd we un anim ou sly

a g re e that or a l argume nt i s not ne e de d in this ca se . Fe d. R. A pp . P. 34(a)
. For

the re asons set for

th below, we A FF I RM the district court’s dec ision.
I. Relevant F acts
B ro wn wa s se nte nc e d to a

te rm of 36 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt after ple a din g g uil ty to unlawful p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e ar m b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n in v io lati o n o f 1 8 U
. S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) , and posses s i o n o f m o re than five g rams of c ocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) , and a jur y found him g uilty

of possessing with intent to di s t ri b u t e cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). B rown’s ba se off ense le vel was 26, a

nd two levels we re ad d ed beca use a f irea rm was possessed duringthe drugoffe nse, pursuant to United S tates S entenc ing Guideline § 2D1.1(c )(7)
. Howeve r, Brown was subject t o the caree r-of fende r provisions, causinghis adjusted offe nse leve l of 28 to be e nh anc e d to 37 purs ua nt to USS G § 4B 1. 1. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d, and the pa rt ie s d id not dispute, that the Presentenc e Report (“PSR”) corr ectly ref lected Br own’s Guideline ra ng e base d on an offense le vel of 37 a nd a cr iminal hist ory

cate g ory of VI , which esta

blished a ra

ng e of 360 months to L ife.
Th e Se nte nc ing Commis sio n a me nd e d U SSG § 2 D1 .1 (c ) i n 2 00 9 to re du c e by tw o th e ba se of fe ns e le ve l f

or mos t c ra c k- c oc a ine of

fe ns e s and

ma de thi s re du c tio n re tr oa c tiv e . USS G A pp . C, Amend. 706; USSG § 1B1.10(c ). On Nove mber 12, 2008, the district court appointed c ounsel for09-5710

Un ite d S tat es v . J ay J os e ph Br own

- 3 - B ro wn a nd ord eredth e pro bat io n o ffi ce t o fi le a Mem oran du m o f R ecal cul ati on (“M OR ”) un der s eal. Th e MO R no te d th a t th e re tr oa c tiv e a pp lic a tio n o f A me ndme nt 7 06 wo uld low e r B ro wn ’s ba se of fe ns e le ve l f

ro m a 26 to 24 , bu t du e to h is c are e r- of fe nd e r s ta tus , h is t ota l of fe ns e le ve l w ou ld
rema in at 37. Thus, the MOR stated B rown wa s not eligible f or a r eduction bec ause his “status as
a ca ree r off ender , [does] not lower the guideline ra ng e for imprisonment.” Over

Br own’s objec tion, the district court de nied a se ntence reduc tion based on the re troac tivity of Amendme nt 706.
B ro wn no w a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r de nying a se nte nc e re du c tio n un de r 18 U. S.C. § 3582(c) (2).
II. Stand ard of Review
A d istri c t c ourt ’s de nia l of a mot ion to m od if y a se nte nc e un der 18 U.S.C . § 35 82 (c )( 2) is revie wed f

or abuse of discre tion. United States v. Pe rdue , 572 F.3d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 2009). As thi s c ourt ha s p re vio us ly

e xpla ine d, “ ‘[a ] dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se s it s d isc re tio n w he n it re lie s o n c le a rl y
err oneous finding s of fa ct, or whe n i t i m p ro p erly applies the lawor uses a n err oneous leg al standard.’ ”

Id. (alter ation in orig inal) (quoting United States v. Larry W . Carter , 463 F.3d 526, 528 (6th Cir. 2006)). W here , as here, the district court concludes that it lacks the authority to reduc e a de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e , it s d e te rm inatio n o f t he de fe nd ant’ s ine lig ibi lity fo r a se nte nc e re du c tio n is a question of law that we review de novo
. United States v. J ohnson , 569 F.3d 619, 623 ( 6th Cir. 2009).09-5710

Un ite d S tat es v . J ay J os e ph Br own

- 4 -

III . A nal ys is
As a g e ne ra l ru le , dis tr ic t c ourt s may no t c ha ng e or mod if y a se nte nc e un le ss s uc h a

uth or ity is ex pressly

g rante d by

statute. See U

nited States v. Houston , 529 F.3d 743, 748 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Such authority is gr anted in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2), wher e a defe ndant has be en sentenc ed to a ter

m of imprisonment based on a sentenc ing rang e that has bee n subsequently lowere d and if such a

reduc tion is consist ent with applica b l e p olicy statements issued by

the Sentencing Commi ssion. The SentencingCommi ssion has issued g uidance perta ining to modifications under §3582(c) (2) in USSG § 1B1.10. “ A re duction in the defe ndant’s ter m of i m p ri s o n ment is not consistent with this policy statement and there fore is not authorized under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . an a mendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the ef fec t of loweringthe def

endant’ s applicable g uideline rang e.” § 1B1.10( a)( 2). Amendme nt 706 is among those listed in subsec tion (c) to USSG § 1B1.10.
Br own challeng es t he denial of hi s sentence reduc tion as inconsistent with United States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which ma de the Guidelines advisory . He a rg ues the district cour

t erre d in f ind ingthat hi s sent e nc ingra ng e wa s b a se d o n h is c are e r- of fe nd e r s ta tus rathe r t

ha n h is attributable a m o u n t of coc aine ba se. He also asser ts “based on a

sentenc ing r ang e” should be construed to mea

n “base offe nse leve l.” As B rown c oncede s, the s e ar gu m ents are fore closed by09-5710

Un ite d S tat es v . J ay J os e ph Br own

At the time of filing his brief, a petition for re hear ing e n ban c was pe nding in Perdue ; 1 howeve r, this petition was denied. B rown submitted his brief “ [i ]n t he eve nt that t h e p et i t i on for rehe aringis gr anted.” - 5 - Perdue. This court found no e rror in the dist ri ct court’s de nial of a r eduction in Perdue be c a us e 1 Amendment 706 had no effe ct on the ul timate sentenc ing r ang e imposed under the ca ree r-of fende r Guidelines. In response to Perdue’s statutory i nterpre tation of “ba sed on a se ntencingrang e” a nd his Booke r

argument that the district court retained power under US SG §1B1.10( a) to further r educe his se nte nc e ba se d o n th e a dv iso ry natur e of the Gu ide lin e s, the c ourt e xpla ine d:
T h i s ar gu m en t , h o we v er , i s wi t h o u tm er i t
. E v en as s u m i n g arguendo that the SentencingCommi ssion has no authority to limi t the district court’s ability to reduc e Perdue’ s sentence , Con gr ess may cer tainly cabin the court’s discretion, and it does so expressly

in the text of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2). As abl y explained by

the cour t be low : [t]he langua g e of § 3 58 2( c )( 2) fa vo rs the g ov e rnme nt’ s in te rp re ta tio n. B y its terms, the statute applies to a de fenda nt whose sentenc e wa s ‘base d on’ a subsequently -lower ed ‘se ntencingrang e.’ Per due’s se ntence wa s b as ed on the g uid e lin e ra

ng e s a pp lic a ble to c are e r o ff

e nd e rs un de r § 4B 1. 1. Th e a lte rn a tiv e ba se offe nse leve l under § 2D1.1 ultimately did not aff

ect the calc ulation of t he sente ncing rang e under

the ca ree r off ender classification, § 4B1.1. Thus, Amendme nt 706’s eff ect on the de fenda

nts’ base offe nse levels would not lower the se ntencingrang es upon which their se ntence s were based. 572 F.3d at 292-93.
Fur thermore , this Court has consistently deter mined that “a de fenda

nt convicted of

cra ckrelated cha

rg es but sentenc ed as a

car eer offe nder under USS G § 4B1.1 is not eligible for a reduc tion based on A mendment 706.” United States v. Pay ton , 617 F.3d 911, 914 ( 6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Bridgewater , 6 06 F .3 d 2 58 , 2 60 -6 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 01 0) ); see also United States v

.09-5710

Un ite d S tat es v . J ay J os e ph Br own

- 6 - W illiams , 6 07 F .3 d 1 12 3, 11 25 -2 6 ( 6th Cir . 2 01 0) ; United States v. Alex ander , 543 F.3d 819, 825 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; United States v. Leasure, 331 F. App’ x 370, 378 (6th Cir. 2009). Br own makes no attempt to disti ng uish Perdue , nor is there any indication the district court re lied on the g uideline rang e attributable to cra ck coc aine a s a point of compar ison in g ranting a depar ture or var iance
. Cf. United States v. Hame ed , 6 1 4 F. 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 4 -6 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) ( d i s t i n gu i s h i n g Perdue beca use the district court beg an its point of de parture for a § 5K1.1 motion as the base offe nse leve l established by § 2D1.1 and “ it is bey ond pera dventure that the di strict judge in this case ac tually relied on the
cra ck g uidelines in selectinga fina l sentence ”).
We have no ba sis to depart fro m o ur established a uthority on the leg al issue in question wher e B rown wa s clea

rly sentenc ed pursua

nt to a car eer -off

ender g uideline ra

ng e and A mendment 706 did not subsequently

lower this ra

ng e.
IV. Conclusion
For these re asons, we A FF I RM the decision of the district cour t.