The Honor able John Corbe tt O’ Mear a, United States District Court f or the Ea stern District * of Michig an, 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: 10a0737n.06 No. 09-4004 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. LEV AR JOH NSO N

, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE NORT HERN DI STRIC T OF OHI O

BEFORE: COLE and WHITE , Circuit Judges; O’MEAR A, Distric t Judge. * JOHN CORBET T O’MEARA, Distr ict Judge. Def endant- appellant L evar

J ohnson appea ls the district court’s denial of a se ntence reduc tion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . For the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , w e wi ll AF F IRM the de nia l.

I. BACKG ROUND L evar J ohnson pleade d g uilty

to two counts of distribution of coca ine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a) (1) a

nd (b)( 1)(A) . Be cause the g overnme nt filed a sente ncingenhanc ement information under 21 U.S.C.§ 851, the s tatutory mandatory minimum sentenc e was raised f rom 120 to 240 months. P ursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and § 3E1.1(a ), the g overnme nt
mo v e d f o r r e d u c ti o n s in s e n te n c e b a s e d o n Jo h n s o n ’ s “ s u b s ta n ti a l a s s is ta

n c e , ” an d a c c e ptance of
re sp on sib ili ty . T he § 3 55 3( e ) m oti on a llo we d th e dis tr ic t c ourt to s e nt ence belowthe 24 0- monthNo. 09-4004

United States v. J

ohnson Pag e 2

Amendment 706, which beca me effec tive November

1, 2007, reduc ed the ba se off ense le vel 1 fo r m os t c ra c k c oc a ine of

fe ns e s b y tw o le ve ls. On

Ma rc h 8 , 2 00 8, Am e ndme nt 7 13 we nt i nto e ff e c t, g iving Ame ndment 706 retroa ctive ef fec t. SeeU.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 713. mandatory

minimum . The district cour t gr anted the motions, resulting in a Guidelines ra ng e of 130 to 162 months. On April 25, 2006, the district court sentenc ed J ohnson to 130 months, foll owed by three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. J ohnson subsequently

filed t wo motions for a sentenc e re duction under 18 U .S.C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) , b a se d on ame ndme nts to t he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s th a t lo we re d th e ba se of fe ns e le ve ls for c rac k coca ine of

fe n s es . The district cour t denied both motions in a single or der Aug ust 13, 1 20 09 . It is that or de r f

ro m w hic h Joh ns on

take s th is a

pp e a l. II. AN AL YSI S Th is c ourt

re vie ws a dis tr ic t court ’s de nia l of a mot ion to m od if y se nte nc e un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 3582(c) (2) for an a

buse of discr etion. Un ite d S tates v . M oo re , 582 F.3d 641, 644 ( 6th Cir. 2009). We have de fined a

n abuse of

discretion as “ a def

inite and firm convic tion that the trial court
c omm itt e d a

c le ar e rr or

of jud g me nt. A d istri c 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 arl y
err oneous finding s of fa ct, or whe n it improperly applies the lawor uses an er ro n eo u s leg al standard.” United States v. Carter , 463 F.3d 526, 528 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). I n th is c a se John so n ar g ue s that the dis tr ic t court a bu se d its disc re tio n in f

a ili ngto c a lc ulate the amended Guidelines rang e, treating the Guidelines rang e as mandatory , and fa iling to consider the fa ctors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We f ind that the district c ourt did not err in de nying J ohnson’s m o t i o n s fo r sentence reduc tion. Section 3582(c)( 2) limits s entence re d u ct i ons to cases in whic h the def endant wa sNo. 09-4004

United States v. J

ohnson Pag e 3 “sente nced to a

term o f i m p risonment based on a sentenc ing r ang e that has subse quently been lowere d by

the SentencingCommi s s io n . ” Jo hn s o n ’ s sentenc e wa s based on the ma ndatory minimum impose d b y 2 1 U
. S. C. § § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) an d 8 5 1 , w h ic hr e ma in e d

u n c h an g e d

b y th e G u id e lines Amendment 706. See United States v. J ohnson , 564 F.3d 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009) . I n United States

v . G arre tt Johnson , w e fo un d tha t “ if John so n we re se nte nc e d tod ay , the ame nd e d G uid e lin e s w ou ld still require a sente nce of

240 months.” Id
. That is true be cause the startingpoint for ca lculating the downwar d depar

ture is the mandatory

minimum . Theref

o re , i n this case if Johnson were r esentenc ed today , the amende d Guidelines would still require a 240-month sent ence; and the c ourt would be depa

rting from this same 240-month base line if ag ain pre sented with the g overnme nt’s
su bs tanti a l- a ssi sta

nc e mot ion . T he dis tr ic t c ourt wa s n ot p e rm itt e d un de r 18 U. S.C. § 3 58 2( c )( 2) to impose a lower

sentenc e. L e va r Johns on als o ar g ue s th a t f oll ow ingthe Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Cou

rt de c isi on s in Booke r v. United States , 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. 85 (2007), the powder and cra ck coca ine g uidelines are advisory in nature, along with othe r guidelines, and that the d i s t ri ct cour

t erre d in not consideringthe fa ctors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court
re ce n t l y h el d , h o we v er , t h at “[ g] i v en t h e li m i t eds co p e a n d p u rp o s e o f § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ),
. . . p ro ce ed i n gs under that section do not impli cate the intere sts identified in Booke r .” Dillon v. United States , 130 S. Ct . 2683, 2692 (2010). Thus, Booke r does not rende r the Guide lines merely advisory i n a § 35 82 (c )( 2) pr oc e e din g , a

nd c on sid e ratio n o f § 35 53 (a )’ s se nte nc ingfa c tor s is a pp ropr iate on ly

in deter mining whe ther a

sentenc e re duction is appropriate:No. 09-4004

United States v. J

ohnson Pag e 4 Se c tio n 3 58 2( c )( 2) ’s te xt, to g e ther w ithits na rr owsc op e , s ho ws that Co ng re ss intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentenc e and not a p l en ary re s en t en ci n g p ro ce ed i n g. Dillon , 130 S. Ct . At 2691. III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons set for

th above, the district c ourt’s denial of the motion of modification of
se nte nc e purs ua

nt t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) is AF F IRMED.