2010 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
7-27-2010 

# U SA v . Gle nn F le mming P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2726

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . 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 . Gle nn Fle mmin g " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 822. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/822T he H onor abl e J ohn E

. J ones , I I I , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * J udge f o r th e M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 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. 09- 2726

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GL E NN F L E M M I NG, a/ k/a N asi r H ug gins,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 2- 03- cr - 00148- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B
. B r ody

A r gued J anuary11, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges and

J O N E S, D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge

*2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y27, 2010) Pet erA
. L evi n, E s qui r e ( A r gued) 1927 H ami l t on St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19130- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant M i chae l L
. L evy U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R ober tA
. Z auzmer A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C h ief o f A p p e a ls B ernadett e M cK eon ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney S alva tore L
. A stolfi, E sq u ir e O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge G l enn Fl emm i ng w as s ent ence d i n February2005 t o 1753 m ont hs ’ im p r i s onm entforfede r al fi r earm and cr ack c ocai ne offe ns es comm i t t ed i n 2002. A ft ert he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i ssi on retroact i velyl ow ered t he o ffen se l evels for m ost cra ck co ca ine o ff

en ses b y tw o leve ls, F lem m ing m o v ed fo r a r educt i on of s ent ence under18 U
. S. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c) ( 2)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on, concl udi ng t hati tl acke d authori t yt o reduc e F l em m i ng ’s sent ence b e c a u se h e w as a car eeroffe nderunder U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 1. O n appea l , Fl emm i ng a rg u e s th a t, de sp ite h is s tatu s a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r, h e is e lig ib le fora s ent ence r educt i on under § 3582( c) ( 2) beca us e t he D i s t r i ct Co u r tg r a n t e d h i m a d o wn wa r d d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU. S
. S
. G. § 4A 1. 3 aft er concl udi ng t hat t he car eer offe nderenhanc ement over s t at ed the s er i ous nes s of his cri m i nal hi s t or y , and i ns t ead s ent ence d hi m w i t hi n the G ui del i nes r ange f orcr ack c ocai ne o f f e n s e s . T he narr ow i s s ue pr es ent ed i n t hi s cas e— w hether a ca ree r o ff

en d er w h o rec eive s a § 4A 1
. 3 d o w n w ar d d e p a rtu re undera pr e- 2003 edi t i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes to t he G u idelines ran g e f

o r crac k co ca ine o ff

en ses is e lig ib le fo r a sent ence redu c ti on un der § 38 52 (c) (2)

— i s one o f fi rs t i m pr es s i on i n ourC our t , butone thathas di vi ded ours i s t er ci rcui tcou rt s. T he F i rs tand S econ d C i rcui t s, as w el l as a di vi ded pane l of the Four t h C i r cui t , have c oncl uded thats uch a defe ndanti s el igibl e fora s ent ence r educt i on. T he Ei ght h and T e n th C ircuit s, as w el l as a di vided pa nel of t he S i xth C i rcui t, have di s agr eed.T hough t he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor tw as pr epar ed 1 i n Sept ember2004, t he U ni t ed S t at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce us ed the 2001 edi t i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes

— t he edi t i on i n for ce w h e n F lem m in g c o m m itt e d th e o f f e n se s in th is c a se

— to a v o id ex pos tf act o is s u e s . See U
. S
. S
. G
. § 1 B 1
. 1 1 (b)(1 ).

4 T ho ug h w e do so t hroug h a som ew hat differ ent anal y si s, w e jo in th e F irst, S e c o n d , an d F o u rth C irc u it C o u rts in concl udi ng t hats uch a de fenda nti s el i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on under§ 3 5 8 2( c) ( 2)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e vac at e the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r a n d re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . I . Backg r ound I n M arch 2 003, a fe der al gr and j ur yr etur ned an in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g th a t F lem m in g p o ss e ss e d w ith in te n t to di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C
. § 841( a) and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ( C ountO ne) ; pos s es s ed a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug t r aff

i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C
. § 924( c) ( 1) ( C ountT w o) ; and pos s es s ed a fi r earm as a fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( C ount T hr ee)

. A j ur yconvi ct ed Fl emm i ng o n a ll th re e c o u n ts
. A
. Sent enci ng U s i ng t he 2001 edi t i on of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , t he 1 Pr obat i on O ffi ce de t er m i ned thatundert he drug quant i t yt abl e, U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 D 1
. 1 (c) (th e “ C rac k C o ca ine G u idelines ”),A defe ndant qual i fi es as a car eeroffe nderi f: “( 1) [he] w as 2 atl eas t ei ght een y ear s ol d att he t i m e [he ] comm i t t ed the i ns t ant o f f e n se o f c o n v ictio n [ ;] (2 ) th e in sta n t o f f e n se o f c o n v ictio n is a fe l onyt hati s ei t hera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s u b sta nce of

fens e[; ] and ( 3) [he] has atl eas ttw o pr i orfel ony convi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i m e of vi ol ence or a c o n tr o l l ed su b stan ce o ff

en se.” U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4 B 1
. 1 (a). F le m m in g h a s tw o p rio r sta te c o u rt c o n v ictio n s (in 3 N ovember1999 and February2000) form anufa ctur i ng, del ivering , orpos s es s i ng w i t h t he i nt entt o m anufa ctur e or d eli v er a co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce . F lem m ing w as 1 8 an d 2 0 -y ea rs ol d, r e s p e c t i v e l y , whe n h e c o mmi t t e d t h e s e o f f e n s e s , and r ece i ved a s ent ence of 12 t o 24 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entforeac h. See PSR ¶¶ 34, 37. 5 Fl emm i ng’ s bas e off

ens e l evel w as 24 beca us e he pos s es s ed m o re th a n f

o u r bu t les s tha n f

iv e g ra m s o f

c ra c k c o c a in e . W ith a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V , Fl emm i ng’ s G ui del i nes r ange w o u ld h av e b ee n 9 2 to 1 1 5 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. H o w ev er, F l e m m i n g a l s o q u a l i f

i e d a s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e ru n d e rU
. S
. S
. G. § 4B 1. 1 ( t he “Car eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes ”) bas ed on tw o pr i or

2 convi ct i ons forcontr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe n ses. T he ca r eer 3 offe nderenhanc ement i ncr eas ed Fl emm i ng’ s offe ns e l evel t o 34 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryt o V I , w i t h a r es ul t i ng S entenci ng G uidel i nes range o f 26 2 to 327 m o nths’ i m pr i s onm ent
. Fl emm i n g als o fac ed a mandat or ycons ecut i ve s e n te n c e o f

6 0 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t o n C o u n t T w o . See 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 )( A )( i)

.6 A ts ent enci ng, Fl emm i ng ar gued thatt he ca r eeroffe nder enhanc ementover s t at ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , w arr ant i ng a dow nw ar d departur e pur s uant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 3. U ndert he 2001 edi t i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , § 4A 1. 3 i n r el evant par tpr ovi ded: I f r el i abl e i nfor m at i on i ndi cat es t hatt he cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egorydoes notadequa t el yr efl ec tt he s er i ous nes s of the def endant ’ s pas tcr i m i nal c o n d u c t o r th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w ill comm i tot hercr i m es , t he courtm aycon side r i m po si ng a sent ence dep art i ng from t he o t herw i se appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4 A 1
. 3 (2 0 0 1 ). In U ni t ed Stat es v. Shoupe , 35 F. 3d 8 3 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ), w e h e ld th a t § 4 A 1 .3 a u th o riz e d a c o u rt to departbot h hor i zont al l y( i n cri m ina l hi s t or ycat egory ) and v e rt ic a lly (in o f

f e n s e le v e l)

. I

d. at 839. I n t he s peci fi c cont ext o f a d e f e n d a n ts u b

j e c tt o t h e c a r e e ro f

f e n d e re n h a n c e me n t , we r eas oned that“[b] eca us e car eeroffe nders t atus enhanc es bot h a d e f e n d a n t’ s c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry a n d o f f e n s e le v e l, . . . a s ent enci ng cour t m ay depart i n bot h under t he p roper ci r cumst ance s . ” I

d. at838. C ons i s t entw i t h ouri nt erpr et at i on of § 4A 1. 3 i n Shoupe , the D i stri ct C ou rt grant ed Flem m i ng a do w nw ard dep arture in b o th o ff en se lev el an d crim inal h isto ry c ateg o ry . T h e C o u rt expl ai ned:7 I’ m g o in g to s ta rt b y s a y in g th a t th e g u id e lin e s . . . a s s ta te d in th e p re -se n ten c e re p o rt a re c o rre c t. H o w e v e r, u n d e r [ § 4 A 1 .3 ], I b e lie v e th a t . . . des i gnat i ng M r . Fl emm i ng as a car eeroffe nder over s t at es hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y and I fi nd t hi s t o be tru e . . . b e c a u se [ o f

] tw o th in g s. N u m b e r o n e is beca u s e t h e a g e a t whi c h h e c o mmi t t e d t he offe ns es . . . thatar e des i gnat ed t o qual i fyunder th e c ri m in a l h is to ry d e s ig n a t i o n . A n d a ls o , . . . al t hough t he tw o offe ns es i n s t at e c o u r tar e not r el at ed, t her e’ s no ques t i on aboutt hat , t he s ent en cing j udge gave M r . Fl emm i ng 12 t o 24 m on t hs. A nd t her efor e, I w i l l depart fr om the c ri m in a l h is to r y re c o rd . T h a t le a v e s u s w ith

. . . an off ens e level of 24 and a cr i m i nal hi s t or yof f iv e . T hough i tdi d notexpr es s l yquant i fyt he ext entof i t s departur e, the o ff en se lev el an d crim inal h ist o ryca teg o rythat the C o u rt w as “l e[f t ]
. . . w i t h” w er e the s ame offens e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryt hatappl i ed u n dert he C r ack Cocai ne G u id e lin e s w ith o u t th e c a re e r of f e n d e r e n h a n c e m e n t ( i

. e. , l evel 24 and ca t egoryV )

. T o r epea t , t he r es ul t i ng G u ideline s r ange w a s 9 2 to 1 1 5 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. N o tin g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a d “ d e ter m in e d th a t [ itT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o i m pos ed a s i x-y ea r term of 4 su p e rv ise d re lea se , a $ 2 ,5 0 0 f in e , an d a $ 3 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. I n D ece m ber20 0 7 , w e af fi r m ed Fl emm i ng’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . 8 w as ] notgoi ng t o appl yt he ca r eeroffe nder pr ovi s i ons , ” the G overnm entr ecomm ended a s ent ence att he t op of the G ui del i nes r ange. T he D i s t r i ctC o u r tfol l ow ed s ui tand se n ten c e d F le m m in g to 1 1 5 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t o n C o u n ts O ne and Thr ee, and a mandat or ycons ecut i ve s ent ence of 60 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm enton C ountT w o . F le m m i ng’ s t ot al se n ten c e w a s th u s 1 7 5 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. 4
B
. M ot i on forSent ence R educt i on E ffe ct i ve N ovember 1 , 2 0 0 7 , the S en tenci ng C om m i s s i on is s ued A m endment706 t o t he G ui del i nes , w hi ch l ow er ed the bas e off ens e l evel foroffe ns es i nvol vi ng m os tqu an t i t i es of cr ack c ocai ne byt w o l evel s . U
. S. S. G
. app. C , amend. 706 ( N ov. 1, 2007)

. I n M ay 2008, t he C om m i s s i on m ade A m endment706 retroac ti v e. U
. S
. S
. G
. ap p . C , am en d

. 7 1 3 (S u p p . M ay 1 , 2 0 0 8 ); U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (c ). O n th e b a si s o f th e A m e n d m e n t, Fl emm i ng fi l ed a pr o s e m ot i on fora r educt i on of s ent ence p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt appoi nt ed couns el t o r epr es ent Fl emm i ng, and t hat couns el fi l ed a s uppl ement al br i ef on Fl emm i ng’ s behal f. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied F lem m ing ’s m o ti o n . ItT hough t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed that“thi s r es ul tm ay 5 notr efl ect[t h e Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s ] i nt enti n pas s i ng A m endment706, ” i tdet erm i ned thatt he conc l us i on t hat Fl emm i ng w as notel i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on w as “ c o m p e lle d b y. . . th e la w o f th is C ir c u it.” 9 rea so n ed th a t, alt h o u g h ith ad g ran ted F lem m ing a d o w n w ard departur e under § 4A 1. 3, i t had nonethel es s adopt ed the fi ndi ngs of the Pr esen tence I nves t i gat i on R epor tand det erm i ned that F lem m in g q u a lifie d a s a c a re e r of f e n d e r. C iti n g o u r d e c isio n in U ni t ed Stat es v. M

at eo , 5 6 0 F
. 3 d 1 5 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ), the C o u rt hel d t hatFl emm i ng w as n o t e nt i t l ed t o a s ent ence r educt i on beca us e A m endment706 di d notaff ecthi s s ent enci ng r ange un der the C areer O ffen der G uidel i nes. F lem m in g tim e ly 5 appea l ed. I I . Juri s di ct i on Th e D i s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. § 3231. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. I I I . D i s cus s i on “[A ] j udgm entof convi ct i on t hati ncl udes [a t erm of i mp r i s on me n t ] c o n s t i tu t e s a f i n a l j u d g me n t , ” 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 2 (b), an d g en era ll ym ay n o t b e m o d ifi ed b ya d istri ct co u rt “once i t has been i m pos ed, ” i d. § 3 58 2(c)

. H ow ever, t here i s a l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s g e n e r a l ru l e o f f i n a l i t y:10 [I ] n t he ca s e of a d efendantw ho has been sen tence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs eq uent l ybeen l ow er ed by t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on . . . , upon m ot i on o f t he def

endantort he D i r ect orof the B u rea u o f P ri so n s, o r on it s o w n m o ti o n , the c o u rt m ayr educe t he t erm of i m pr i s onm ent, aft er cons i der i ng t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3553( a) t o t he e x tent t hatt heyar e appl i cabl e, i f s uch a r educt i on i s cons i s t entw i t h appl i cabl e pol i cy s t at ement s i s s ued byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. I d. § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). W e have i nt erpr et ed thi s pr ovi s i on as author i zi ng a d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o r e d u c e a s e n t e n c e a l r e a d yi mp o s e d wh e r e t wo r equi r ement s are s at i s fi ed: ( 1) t he def endant ’ s i ni t i al s ent ence m ust h ave be en “ba s ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent lyb ee n low ere d b ythe S en tenc ing C o m m issi on, ” and (2 ) th e se n ten c e re d u c tio n m u st b e “ c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” I d. ; U ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 56 4 F
. 3d 30 5, 30 9 (3d C i r. 20 09 ). If these tw o re q u ire m e n ts a re sa tisf ied , a c o u rt m a y the n e x e rc ise its di s cr et i on— “af

t ercons i der i ng t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3 5 5 3 ( a ) t o t h e e xt e n tt h a tt h e ya r e a p p l i c a b l e , ” 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2), a s w ell as th e f ac tors co n tai n ed in the co m m en tary to th e C o m m iss io n ’s p o licy sta tem e n ts, U .S .S .G
. § 1 B 1 .1 0 c m t. n .1 (B )— to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a re d u c tio n in se n ten c e is11 w a rr a n te d (a s w e ll a s th e e x te n t o f a n ys u c h re d u c tio n ). I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thati tl acke d author i tyt o cons i derw hethera s ent ence r educt i on w as wa r r a n t e d b e c a u s e F l e mm i n g d i d n o ts a t i s f ye i t h e ro f

t h e t wo s t atut or y r equi r ement s i n § 3582( c) ( 2)

. T hus , w e ar e notcal l ed on t o r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t’ s ex er ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on, but to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it w a s c o rre c t th a t F lem m in g is s tatu to rily i n e l i g i b l e f

o ra s e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. We r e v i e w de novo a d istri ct co u rt ’s interpre tat ion o f § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2), a s w e ll a s its in te rp re ta tio n o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . See Mat eo , 5 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 5 4
. A
. W as Fl emm i ng s ent ence d “bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange” t hathas been l ow er ed b y A m endment 7 0 6 ? C ons i s t ent w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r eas oni ng , t he G overnm entcont ends t hatourdeci s i on i n M a t eo compel s t he concl us i on t hatFl emm i ng w as nots ent ence d “b ased on a sent encing r ang e” that w as l ow ered byA m end m ent 706 b ecause hi s G ui del i nes r ange w as cal cul at ed undert he C ar eerO ffe nder G ui del i nes i n § 4B 1. 1, r athert han the C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes i n § 2D 1. 1( c)

. W e di s agr ee. I n Mat eo , w e hel d t hat a car eer offe nder , w ho r ece i ved no dow nw ar d departur es and w as s ent ence d w ith in t h e Car eer O f f e n d e r G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w a s n o t e li g ib le f o r a re d u c tio n in12 s ent ence even though hi s b ase o ffe ns e l evel undert he C r ack C ocai ne G ui del i nes had bee n s ubs equent l yl ow er ed by A m en d m en t 7 0 6
. 5 6 0 F
. 3 d at 15 5
. W e re jected the d ef

en d an t’ s ar gum entt hathi s s ent ence w as “base d on” the C r ack Cocai ne G u i del i nes i n § 2D 1. 1( c) s i m pl ybeca us e “the D i s t r i ctC o u rt cons ul t ed thats ect i on i n cal cul at i ng h i s offe ns e l evel

. ” I d. In addi t i o n , w e emphas i zed the l anguage fr om § 3582( c) ( 2) t hatt he s ent ence i m pos ed m us thave be en “‘ bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange t hat has s ubs equent l y been l ow er ed by the S ent enci ng C om m i s s i on, ’ ” i d. ( quot i ng 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 )) (e m p h a sis i n or i gi nal ) , an d r eas oned thatt he t erm “s ent enci ng r ange”

“‘ cl ear l ycont emplat es t he e n d re su lt of the over al l gui del i ne cal cul us , nott he 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 t he per for m ance of thatcal cul us . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . C a ra b a llo , 5 5 2 F
. 3 d 6 , 1 0 (1 st C ir

. 2 0 0 8 )) ( emphasi s added)

. T hus , “‘ i f an a m ended gui del i ne does not have the ef

fec tof l ow er i ng t he s ent enci ng r ange act ual l y us ed ats ent enci n g , t he def

endant ’ s s ent ence w as notbas ed on that r ange w i t hi n t he i nt endmentof the s t atut e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng C a ra b a llo , 5 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). F a r f ro m c o m p e lli n g th e c o n c lu sio n th a t h e is in e lig ib le f o r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n , M at eo s uppor t s Fl emm i ng’ s ar gum ent t hat hi s s ent ence w as “bas ed on” the s ent enci ng r ange c al cul at ed u n d er the C rac k C o ca ine G u idelines

. T h o u g h the D istri ct C o u rt ag ree d that F lem m ing tech n icall y q u ali fied as a c are er o ff en d er, i tdecl i ned t o s ent ence hi m w i t hi n t hat r ange, and i ns t ead a ppl i ed t he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes r ang e af t erdet erm i ni ng underSee U ni t ed Stat es v. P oi ndexter , 550 F. Supp. 2d 578, 581 7 ( E
. D
. Pa. 2008) ( ho ldi ng t hatcar eeroffe ndergr ant ed a dow nw ar d departur e under § 4A 1. 3 and s ent ence d w ith in t he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes r ange w as el i gi b le f ora s ent ence r educt i on: “[I ] n t he end, [the C r ack C ocai ne G ui del i nes ] pl ay ed a fa rm or e s i gni fi cant ro le than Sect i on 4B 1. 1, t he s ect i on t hat t he G overnm entar gu es [the de fenda nt ’ s ] s ent ence w as bas ed o n .”); see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v. Str at t on , N o . 9 9

- 3 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 WL 5 0 6 3 6 5 , at * 5 -6 (E .D . P a . F e b . 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ); U nited S t ates v. C l ark , N o . 0 0 -03 7 , 2 0 0 8 W L 2 7 0 5 2 1 5 , at * 1 (W

. D
. P a. July7 , 2 0 0 8 ); U nited S t ates v. C ornis h , N o . 0 5 -3 3 7 , 2 0 0 8 U
. S
. D ist

. L E X IS 50 57 7, at*7 -8 ( D
. N
. J. June 2 5, 20 08 ) ( “[A ]l t ho ug h these dow nw ar d departur es w er e fr om t he § 4B 1. 1 G ui del i nes bas ed on t he C our t ’ s det erm i nat ion t hat[the def endant ’ s ] cr i m i nal hi s t or yw as over s t at ed, t heyr es ul t ed i n a s ent ence t hatw as exac t l ya s p r o p o s e d b yt h e Se n t e n c i n g Gui d e l i n e s u n d er § 2D 1. 1. I n eff

ect , t he C our tdi d nots ent ence [the def endant ] as a c a re e r o f

f e n d e r.” ). 13 § 4A 1. 3 t hatt he ca r eero ff enderenhanc ementover s t at ed the s er i ous nes s of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y . I n ot herw or ds , t he D i s t r i ct C our t “ac tual l y us ed” t he C r ack C ocai ne G ui del i n es ra nge, ra th e r th a n th e C a r e e r O f f e n d e r G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w h e n it s e n te n c e d F le m m in g . T he Fi r s t , Second, and Four t h C i r cui tC our t s

— as w el l as n u me r o u s d i s t r i c tc o u r t s , i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l i n o u ro wn C irc u it

— have r eac hed the s ame concl us i on i n near l yi dent i cal

7T h e E lev e n th C irc u it h a s a lso e x p re ss e d a g re e m e n t w ith th is 8 concl us i on, al bei t i n a di ct um . See U nited S t ates v. Moo re , 541 F .3 d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 2 9

– 3 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (a g re e in g th a t d e f e n d a n ts gr ant ed a dow nw ar d departur e under§ 4A 1. 3, and s ent ence d undert he G ui del i nes r ange t hat“w oul d be i n eff ectabs entt he car eer offe nder gui del i ne[s ] , ” w oul d be el i gi bl e for a s ent ence red u cti o n u n d er 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2)). 14 ci r cumst ance s . I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. McG ee , 553 F. 3d 225 ( 2d 8 C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (

percur i am ) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed a c ar eer o f f e n d e r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re u n d e r § 4 A 1 .3 , sta tin g th a t it w a s d e p a rtin g f

ro m th e C a re e r O f

f e n d e r G u id e lin e s ra n g e “ to t he l evel t hat t he defenda nt w oul d have be en i n abs entt he ca r eer offe nders t atus cal cul at i on. ” I d. at227 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our tappl i ed the s ent enci ng r ange cal culated undert he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes and s ent ence d th e d e f e n d a n t w ith in th a t r a n g e . I d. T h e S e c o n d C irc u it concl uded thatt he def endantw as el i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i o n , a s i tw as “appa r entt hat[the def endant ] w as s ent ence d ‘b a se d o n ’ a se n ten c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e th a t w a s s u b se q u e n tly l ow er ed byt he Sent enci ng C o m m i s s i on beca us e the di s t r i ct cour tpr emi s ed [i t s ] u lt i m at e s ent ence on t he cr ack c ocai ne gui del i nes . ” I

d. I ndeed, beca us e t he di s t r i ct cour t“sent ence d [ th e d e f e n d a n t] b a se d o n th e c ra c k c o c a in e g u id e lin e s[ , it ] w o u ld l i kel yhave c ons i der ed a di ffe r ents ent ence fr o m the one i m pos ed i f t he appl i cabl e cr ack gui del i nes had s o pr ovi ded. ” I d. at228. Im p or t ant l y , t he Second Ci r cui tper cei ved no conf l i ct betw een th e resul ti tr eac hed i n McG ee and the conc l us i on, cons i s t entw i t h Mat eo , t hat “a defend ant w ho i s sent enced as aT he Munn Co u r t d i d n o t a n a l y z e s e p a r a t e l yt h e t wo 9 s t atut or yr equi r ement s fora s ent ence r educ ti on under § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2)— i

. e. , t hat( 1) t he defe ndant ’ s s ent ence w as “bas ed on” a se nt enci ng r ange t hathas been s ubs equent l yl ow er ed, and ( 2 ) t hatanys ent ence r educt i on be cons i s t entw i t h t he Sent enci ng C o m m iss ion’s poli cyst at em ents

— bu t ra th e r f o c u se d its a n a ly sis o n the s ec o n d req u ir em en t, w h ich w e d iscu ss b elow in P art I I I
. B
. I n t hat r egar d, t he Four t h C i r cui t appea r s t o have a s s um ed ( as atl eas tone otherC i r cui thas ) t hatt he tw o r equi r ement s of § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) a re in te rc h a n g e a b le

. S e e Munn , 595 F. 3d at187 ( “Toget her , § 3582( c) ( 2) and the Pol i cySt at ementm ake c l ear th a t a d e f

e n d a n t w h o se o f

f e n se o f c o n v ictio n in v o lv e d c ra c k is 15 car eeroffe nder , butdoes n o tr ece i ve a dow nw ar d departur e, [does not ] qual i f[y ] fora r educe d s ent ence . ” I d. a t 2 2 7 ; see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez , 572 F. 3d 82, 84 ( 2d C ir

. 2009) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng t he def

endanti n M

cG ee
— w ho “ could have be en sent enced un der § 4B 1. 1 b ut w as in fa c t s ent ence d under[the C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes i n] § 2D 1. 1”— fr om a def endantw ho i s s ent ence d w i t hi n t he C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del ine s r ange a nd t hus ineligi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on bas ed on A m endment 7 0 6 ) ( e m p h a s e s in o ri g in a l)

. T he Fi r st a n d Four t h C i r cui tC our t s s i m i l ar l yhave co n clud ed that a c are er o ff en d er w h o is gran ted a d o w n w ard departur e under§ 4A 1. 3 t o t he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes r ange is e lig ib le f

o r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). See U nit e d S t ates v. C ardo sa , 6 0 6 F
. 3 d 1 6 , 2 1 (1st C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Munn , 595 F. 3d 183 ( 4t h C i r . 2010)

. A nd, l i ke 9eli g ible fo r a red u ce d sen tenc e o n lyif A m en d m en t 70 6 low ers th e d e f e n d a n t’s a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e .”); cf

. U ni t ed Stat es v. D r yden , 563 F. 3d 1168, 1170–71 ( 10t h C i r . 2009) ( concl udi ng t hat the t w o r equi r ement s ar e “i dent i cal ” and
“ c o n v e y [ ] t h e s a m e m e a n in g ” ). 16 t he Second Ci r cui ti n Mc G ee (an d ourC our ti n M at eo ), t hese C our t s agr ee thata defenda nts ent ence d w i thi n t he C ar eer O ffe nderG ui del i nes r ange w oul d not be el i gi bl e for a s ent ence re d u c tio n . See C ardo sa , 606 F. 3d at19 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. A yala- P izarro , 5 5 1 F
. 3 d 8 4 , 8 5 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 8 )); Munn , 595 F. 3d a t 1 8 7 & n .7
. W e agr ee w i t h t he r eas oni ng of thes e C our t s . T he G overnm ent ’ s cont ent i on t hat Fl emm i ng’ s s ent ence w as “bas ed on” t he sent enci ng r ange cal cul at ed under t he C ar eerO ffe nder G ui del i nes cannot be s quar ed w i t h t he or di narym eani ng of that p h ra s e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ook , 5 9 4 F
. 3 d 8 8 3 , 8 8 8 (D

. C
. C ir

. 2010) ( “C ons t rued i n i t s or di narys ens e, t he phr as e ‘ bas ed on’ r efe r s , forpurpos es of s ect i on 3582( c) ( 2 ), t o a gui del i ne r ange th a t d e ter m in e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e .”); see als o C ardo sa , 606 F. 3d at 5
. I n appl y i ng t he § 4A 1. 3 departur e, t he D i s t r i ct C our tdi d nots peci fyt he number of offen se l evel s orcr i m i nal h isto ry c a teg o rie s b yw h ich it w a s d e p a rtin g . R a th e r, itsim p ly r evert ed, w i t houtfur t hercomm ent , t o t he bas e off ense l evel cal cul at ed undert he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes ( 24) and the cr i m i n al h i s t or ycat egoryt hatappl i ed t o Fl emm i ng abs entt he car eero ff

enderenhanc ement( V ) , and i m pos ed a s ent ence w i t hi n thatr ange. I ndeed, w e have l i t t l e doubtt hathadW ith an o ff en se l ev el o f 22 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry 10 of V , t he advi s orys ent en cing r ange f orFl emm i ng w oul d have been 77 t o 96 m o n ths’ i m pr i s onm ent( i ns t ead of 92 t o 115 m o n th s ). 17 A m endment706 been in effe ctw hen Fl emm i ng w as s ent ence d— and, t hus , had Fl emm i ng’ s offe ns e l evel undert he C r ack C ocai ne G ui del i nes been t w o l evel s l ow er

— t he D i s t r i ct C our tw oul d have a ppl i ed t he r es ul t i ng l ow erG ui del i nes r ange af t e r d e p a r t i n g u n d e r § 4 A1. 3
. To i g n o r e t h e s e f a c t s and 10 concl ude nonethel es s t hat Fl emm i ng w as s ent ence d “bas ed on” t he C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes r ange w oul d putfor m over su b stan ce . See M

cG ee , 553 F. 3d at228 ( r eas oni ng t hat“a defe ndantw ho w as , even i f by vi r tue of a departur e, s ent ence d

‘ bas ed on’ t he cr ack gui del i nes [i s ] el i gi bl e fo r a r educt i on” u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ), an d n o tin g th a t “a d if f e re n t re a d in g w o u ld le n d its e lf

to e x c e s s iv e f

o rm a lis m ” ). In sum , w e con cl ud e t hat Fl em m i ng sat i sfi es the fir st r equi r ementof § 3582( c) ( 2) , as h is se nt ence w as “bas ed on a s ent enci n g range” thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. B
. D oes A m endment706 have the ef fec t of l ow er i ng Fl emm i ng’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” ? W h a t in iti a llya p p e a rs to b e a q u e stio n w ith a “ se e m in g ly c o m m o n s e n s e ” a n s w e r, McG ee , 553 F. 3d at229— i

. e. , w hether Fl emm i ng’ s t echni cal s t atus as a ca r eer offe nder , w hi ch pl ay edA s t he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l yconfi r m ed, t he Sent enci ng 11 C om m i ssi on ’s po l i cyst at em ent i n § 1B 1. 10 i s bi nd i ng on cou rt s. See D i l l on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 1 3 0 S . C t. 2 6 8 3 (2 0 1 0 ). W e have expl ai ned that w hi l e the pol i cys t at ementand the 12 fi r s tr equi r ementof § 3582( c) ( 2) ar e “c om pl ement ary , ” the p ol i cys t at ementi s “narr ow er . ” D oe , 5 6 4 F. 3 d a t3 10–11 ( r ej ect ing t he ar gum entt hatt he pol i cys t at ementi n § 1B 1. 10
“ im p lic itly re d e f

in e s th e § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) t e rm ‘b a s e d o n ’” ).

18 no r ol e i n t he s ent ence t he D i s t r i ctC our tul t i m at el yi m pos ed, n o n e th e les s m a k e s h im in e lig ib le f o r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n

— is m ade f arm or e compl i cat ed bythe s econd r equi r ementof § 3 58 2(c) (2) , w hich provides t hat anysent ence redu ct i on m ust be “c ons i s t entw i t h appl i cab le pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued byt he S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ); see al so 11 D oe , 5 6 4 F .3 d a t 3 1 0
. T he pol i cys t at ement i n § 1B 1. 10 pr ovi des t hat a s ent ence r educt i on bas ed on a r etr oact i ve amendm ent i s n o t c ons i s t ent w i t h t hatpol i cy s t at ement i f t he am endment “does nothave the e f f e c t o f lo w e rin g the defen dan t ’s a p p l i c a b l e gui del i ne r ange .” 12 U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( emphasi s added)

. T hus , undert he pol i c ys t a t e me n t , Fl e mmi n g i s n o te l i g i b l e f o ra s e n t ence r e d u c t i o n i f

h i s “ a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e ” i s t h e s e n t e n ci ng r ange c al cul at ed undert he C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes , as t hat ra n g e is n o t af

f e c te d b y A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 . H o w e v e r, if Fl emm i ng’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i s t he C r ack Cocai ne19 G u id e lin e s ra n g e

— w h ich is a f f e c ted b y A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6

— h e is e lig ib le f o r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n . T he G overnm entcon te nds t hatt he G ui del i nes s peci fy t hatal l departur es , i ncl udi ng t he depa r tur e author i zed unde r § 4A 1. 3, r es ul ti n a s ent ence out s i de t he “a ppl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” U ndert he G overnm ent ’ s t heory , i t i s i r r el evant t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed the pr opr i etyof the ca r eeroffe nder enhanc ementand s ent ence d Fl e mmi n g wi th i n th e Cr a c kCoc a i ne G ui del i nes r ange, beca us e hi s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” for purpos es of § 1B 1. 10 r emai ned the C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes ra n g e . A s w e expl ai n bel ow , t he G overnm ent ’ s vi ew , t hough pl aus i bl e, i s farfr om compel l ed by t he G ui del i nes . R ather , aft er “s ei z[i ng] everyt hi ng fr om w hi ch ai d can be der i ved” t o ans w er th is q u e s tio n , C hapm an v. U ni t ed Stat es , 500 U
. S. 453 , 463 (19 9 1 ) (intern al q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted)— i

. e. , t he G ui del i nes ’ t ext , t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s i ns t ruct i ons for a p p ly in g th e G u id e lin e s, a n d th e C o m m iss io n ’s a p p lica b le C om m ent ary t o t he G ui del i nes

— w e concl ude thatt he edi t i on of t he G ui del i nes us ed atFl emm i ng’ s s ent enci ng i s ambi guous as to w h e th e r t h e “ a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” is h is p re -§ 4 A 1 .3 d e p a rtu re ra n g e (th e C a re e r O f f e n d e r G u id e lin e s ra n g e ) o r h is pos t
- § 4A 1. 3 depar tur e r ange ( t he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes ra n g e ). U n d e r th e ru le o f len it y, w e re so lv e th a t am b ig u ityin F le m m in g ’s f

a v o r.T o b e c l e a r , t h e s e “ s t e p s ” a r e n o t t h e s a me a s t h o s e we 13 have r equi r ed d ist ri ctcour t s t o fol l ow i n t he w ake of U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). See U n i t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); accor d U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 5 8 5 F
. 3 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 1

– 4 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( en banc )

. U nder t hat pr ocedur e, di s t r i ct cour t s m us t ( 1) “cont i nue t o cal cul at e a defe ndant ’ s G ui deli n es s ent ence pr eci s el yas t heyw oul d have befor e B ooker ”; (2) rul e on anydepartur e mot i ons , and det erm ine how anydepartur e “a ffe ct s t he G ui del i nes ca lcul at i on”; and ( 3) i m pos e a s ent ence aft ercons i der i ng t he f a c to rs i n 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). G unt er , 5 8 5 F
. 3 d a t2 4 7
. By contr as t , w e dea l i n t hi s case so lel yw i t h a ques t i on of 20 1. T he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons T he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes cont ai n no gl obal defi ni t i on of the phr as e “appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra nge, ” w hi ch our Courtand o t h e rc i r c u i tc o u r t s h a v e t r e a t e d a s a t e r m o f a r t
. As a r e s u l t , we pr evi ous l yhave l ooked t o t he A ppl i cat i on Instruct i ons fort he G u id e lin e s c o n tain e d in U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 f o r g u id a n c e in d e ter m in in g th e p o in t at w h ich a d e f e n d a n t’s “ a p p lica b le gui del i ne r ange” i s det erm i ned. T hos e I ns t ruct i ons ( t hough t hey do no tu s e t h e t e r m “ a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e ” ) i n s t r uct se n te n cing co u rt s to a p p lythe v ariou s p rov isi o n s an d ch ap ters of the G ui del i nes “in a s peci fi c or der

. ” D oe , 564 F. 3d at311; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 1 5 5 F .3 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 4 (3d C ir

. 1998) ( not i ng t hatt he A ppl i cat i on I n struct i ons pr ovi de “a seq u en ce o f

s t e p s f o rt h e c o u r tt o f

o l l o w i n t h e o r d e ri n whi ch t heyappea r”) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )

. T he theoryi s t hat , by 13G ui del i nes i nt erpr et at i on ( i

. e. , at w h at po int a d ef en d an t’ s “appli ca b le gui del i ne r ange” has been s et ) , and w hethert he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons pr ovi de a cl earans w ert o t hatques t i on. M o re o v e r, a s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s n o w ru le d , B oo ker does not a p p ly in t h e § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) c o n te x t. See D i l l on , 130 S. C t
. at 2 6 9 2
. 21 det erm i ni ng t he s t ep of the A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons atw hi ch a defe ndant ’ s “appl i cab l e gui del i ne r ange” has been s et , w e ca n i dent i fy t he adj us t m ent s t hatcome after t hat poi nt( and thus do n o t a f f e c t th e “ a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” ). W e r e l i e d o n t h e App l i c a t i o n I n s t ru c t i o n s i n U ni t ed S t at es v. D oe t o det erm i ne the “a ppl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange[ s]” fortw o defe ndant s s ubj ect t o m andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence s of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch exc eeded t hei ri ni t i al G ui del i nes ra n g e s o f

1 5 1

– 1 8 8 a n d 1 2 1

– 1 5 1 m o n th s’ im p ris o n m e n t, res pecti v e l y , cal culat ed u nd er the C rack C ocaine G uidel i nes. 564 F. 3d at308. T h e mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence w as not ap p li ed to either d ef

en d an t bec au se ea ch rec eive d a d o w n w ard departur e fr om s uch a s ent ence under 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( e) and U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 in e x c h a n g e f o r th e ir su b sta n tial a ss ista n c e to th e G o v e rn m e n t. I

d. A ft erdepart i ng bys ever al leve ls, t he D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d Ja n e D o e to 4 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, a n d J o h n D o e to 8 4 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. I d. A f terA m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 w a s m a d e re tro a c tiv e , b o th d e f e n d a n ts f ile d m o ti o n s f

o r a re d u c tio n o f

s e n te n c e . I

d. T he D oes cont ended thatt hei r “a ppl i cabl e gui del i ne r anges ” forA s J udge Fuent es not ed i n hi s concurr i ng opi ni on i n D oe , 14 ou r pr ecede nt “al l ow s a di stri ctcou rtt o co nsi der the seri ou sness of a defenda nt ’ s offe ns e— oft en re fl ect ed i n t he § 5A G ui del i nes r ange [ i

. e. , t he r ange c al cul at ed undert he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes ]

— i n det erm i ni ng t he ext entof a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur e. ” 564 F. 3d at315 ( Fuent es , J
. , concurr i ng) ( c i t i n g Uni t e d S t a t e s v . C as i ano , 1 1 3 F
. 3 d 4 2 0 , 4 3 1 (3d C ir

. 1997) )

. H ow ever , “[w ] e ar e al one i n t hi s appr oach; al l o the r ci r cui t s t o have addr es s ed t he i s s ue have hel d t hat t he maxi m um ext ent of a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur e m ay be base d onl yon t he def endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . ” I d. at315 n. 1. 22 purpos es of § 1B 1. 10 w er e the r anges cal cul at ed under t he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del ines , as t he D i s t r i ctC our thad r el i ed on t hos e r anges t o det er m i ne the ext entof i t s departur e under § 5K 1. 1. W e r ej ect ed thei rar g u m ent , concl udi ng t hatt he

14 D o es’ “ ap p li ca b le gu ideline ra n g e[ s]” w er e the m an d atory m i ni mum s ent ence s , r athert han thei r“i ni t i al ” G ui del i nes r anges u n d e r t h e C ra c k C o c a in e G u id e lin e s . I d. a t 3 1 1
. I n s o hol di ng, w e l ooked t o t he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons i n § 1B 1. 1, w hich cul m i nate i n the foll ow i ng fou r s t eps: (f) D eterm ine th e d ef

en d a n t’ s crim inal h ist o ry ca tego ryas sp ec ifi ed in P art A o f C h ap ter F o u r. D et erm i ne fr om Par tB of C hapt erFouranyot her app l i cable adj ust m ents
. ( g) D et erm i ne the gui del i ne r ange i n P art A of23 C hapt erFi ve that corr es ponds t o t he offe ns e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egorydet erm i ned above

. ( h) For t he par t i cul ar gui del i ne r ange, d et erm i ne fr om p arts B t hr ough G of C hapt erFi ve the se n ten c in g re q u ire m e n ts a n d o p tio n s re late d to probati on , i m pri sonm ent, supervi si on con dit i on s, fi nes , and r es t i tut i on. ( i ) R efe rt o Par t s H and K o f C hapt erFi ve, S pecif ic O f f e n d e r C h a ra c ter istics a n d D e p a rtures, an d to anyo ther p o li cystat em en ts or co m m en tary i n t he gui del i nes t hat m i ght w arr antcons i der at i on i n i m pos i ng s ent ence . U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1 .1 (f

)– (i ). T he D oes ’ “i ni ti al ” G ui del i nes r anges w er e det erm i ned ats t ep ( g) , bas ed on t he offe ns e l evel s as s i gned them undert he C r ack Cocain e G ui del i nes i n § 2D 1. 1( c)

. H ow ever , s t ep ( h) i ns t ruct s a se n t enci ng cour tt o det erm i ne “the s ent enci ng r equi r ement s ” for“the par t i cul ar gui del i ne ra nge” bycons ul t i ng “part s B t hr ough G of C hapt er Fi ve, ” w hi ch i ncl ude appl i cat i on of a mandat or ym i ni m um sen tenc e under§ 5G 1. 1. I n tur n, § 5G 1
. 1( b) pr ovi des t hat , “[w ] her e a s t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi n i mum s e n t e n c e i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e ma x i mum o f t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, t he s t at u tor i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um s ent ence s hal l be t he gui del i ne s ent ence . ” U
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1. 1( b)S o me o f o u r s i s t e r c i r c ui tc o u r t s h a v e r e a c h e d t h e s a me 15 c o n c lu sio n th ro u g h a d if f e re n t an a ly sis ; i

. e. , b e c a u s e U. S
. S
. G. § 5G 1. 1( b) pr ovi des t hatt he manda torym i ni m um s ent ence becomes “the gui del i ne s ent ence , ” a d efe ndants ubj ectt o a m andat or ym i ni m u m sen t ence i s nots ent ence d “bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange ” thats ubs equent l ycoul d be l ow er ed byt he S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) (e m p h a s is added) , and thus fai l s to sat i s fyt he fi r s tr equi r ementof § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). See Cook , 5 9 4 F
. 3 d at 88 6

– 8 7 (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). 24 ( em p h asi s added)

. I n t hatcont ext , w e conc l uded that( 1) t he A p p li ca ti o n Instruc tio n s “sp ec if[y ] th at ap p ly ing a m an d atory se n ten c e p u rsu a n t to § 5 G 1 .1 (b ) [ w a s] th e las t ste p in det erm i ni n g the [D oes ’ ]
. . . G ui del i ne s ent ence ”; and ( 2) t he D oes ’ “i ni t i al ” advi s or yr anges undert h e C rac k C ocai ne G ui del i nes had bee n es s enti al l y“‘ s ubs um ed and r epl ace d’ ” at s te p (h ) b yth e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e s . I d. a t 3 1 1
. T hus , t he i m pl i cat i on of ourr eas oni ng i n D oe i s t ha t a defe ndant ’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, ” forpurpos es of § 1 B 1
. 1 0 , h as b ee n set o n ce a c o u rtfin ishe s ap p ly ing step (h), and thatanyadj us t m entappl i ed i n s t ep (i )

— s uch as a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance d epar tur e under§ 5K 1. 1— has no eff ecton t he “appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra n g e, ” eve n i f a c our tr el i ed on the defe ndant ’ s “i ni t i al ” G ui del i nes r ange unde rt he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes i n det erm i ni ng t he ext entof s uch a de par tur e. 15
T hough D oe di d noti nvol ve a de fenda ntw ho r ece i ved a dow nw ar d departur e under§ 4A 1. 3 t o t he r ange c alcu lat edI n hi s concurr i ng opi ni on i n D oe , J udge Fuent es expr es s ed 16 con cern t hat the m aj ori t yhad no tdis t i ng uis hed t he D oes’ ci r cum st ance s fr om “anothercat egoryof def endant s ”— car eer offe nder s w ho r ece i ved dow nw ar d depa r t ur es under § 4A 1. 3— “w hom s om e cour t s have rul ed el i gi bl e for ” a s ent ence r educt i on. 564 F. 3d at318 ( Fuent es , J
. , concurr i ng) ( ci t i ng McG ee , 553 F. 3d 225) ( emphasi s om i t t ed)

. H ow ever , as w e expl ai n i n gr eat er det ai l bel ow , t her e i s no confl i ctbetw een ourconcl us i on i n t hi s cas e and the r es ul ti n D oe , as t he G u id e lin e s a re n o t sim ilarlya m b ig u o u s a s to th e “ a p p lica b le g u ideline ra n g e” fo r a d ef en d an t subject t o a m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence . I n t hatl i ght , w e not e thatt he Fi r s t , Second, a n d F o u rth C irc u its, w h ich h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t a d e f e n d a n t in Fl emm i ng’s pos i t i on i s el i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on, have al s o concl uded ( cons i s t entw i t h D oe ) th a t a d e f e n d a n t su b

jec t to a mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence i s notel i gi bl e fora s ent ence r e d u c tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. R oa- Medi na , 6 0 7 F. 3 d 2 5 5, 2 5 8

– 6 1 (1st C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Hood , 556 F. 3d 226, 2 3 5

– 3 6 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 551 F. 3d 182, 1 8 5 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 25 u n d e r th e C ra c k C o c a in e G u id e lin e s, o u r sis te r c irc u it co u rts 16 h a v e sim ila rlyre lied o n th e A p p lica tio n In stru c tio n s to d e ter m in e th e p o in t at w h ich su c h a d e f e n d a n t’s “ a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” h a s b e e n d e te rm i n e d

. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Tol l i ver , 570 F. 3d 1062, 1065–66 ( 8t h C i r . 2009)

. I n Tol l i ver , t he Ei ght h C i r cui t C our thel d t hata ca r eeroffe nderw ho w as r es ent ence d w i t hi n t he C r ack C ocai ne G ui del i nes r ange pur s uant to a s tip u lation b etw ee n the p arti es w as n o t el igible f o r a s ent ence r educt i on beca us e A m endment706 di d nothave theI n t he al t ernat i ve, t he C our thel d t hatT ol l i verw as 17 i nel i gi bl e fora s ent en ce r educt i on beca us e he f ai l ed t o qual i fy u n d e r t h e f

ir s t re q u ir e m e n t o f § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ), i

. e. , hi s s ent ence w as “expl i ci t l ybas ed on a s t i pul at i on betw een the part i es , and noton a s ent enci ng r ange thathad s ubs equent l ybeen l ow ered byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” 570 F. 3d at1067 ( i nt ernal quot at i on 26 eff ectof l ow er i ng hi s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” 570 F. 3d at 1 0 6 4

– 6 5
. Th a t s t i p u l a t i o n f o l l o we d t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2255 m ot i on, i n w hi ch he ar gued t hat he s houl d have r ece i ved a s ent ence w i t hi n t he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes r ange ( r ather th a n th e C a re e r O f

f e n d e r G u id e lin e s ra n g e ) “ a s o rig in a lly c o n te m p la te d ” b yth e p a rt ie s in t h e irp le a a g re e m e n t. I d. at 1 0 6 4
. T h e G o v ern m en t agre ed n o t t o o p p o se th e d ef en d an t’ s m ot i on, an d sti pul at ed t o a s ent ence w i t hi n t he C r ack Cocai ne G u id e lin e s ra n g e . I

d. C i t i ng o urdeci s i on i n D oe , the E igh th C ir cu itC o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t (1 ) a d e f

e n d a n t’s “ a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” is d eterm ined at s tep (h) o f the A p p li ca ti o n Instruc ti o n s, an d (2) a cour td e t e r mi n e s whe t h e ra n yd e p a r tu r e s a r e warr a n t e d a ts t ep (i), af ter th e “ a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” h a s a lre a d yb e e n se t. Id

. at1065–66 ( ci t i ng D oe , 5 6 4 F .3 d a t 3 1 1 ). A p p a r e n tly concl udi ng t hatT ol l i ver ’ s s t i pul at ed s ent ence r educt i on w as equi val entt o a “de par tur e” unde rt he G ui del i nes ( and appl i ed at ste p (i) o f

th e A p p lica tio n In s tr u c tio n s), th e E ig h th C irc u it det erm i ned thathi s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” re m ai ned the C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes r ange a n d w as unaf fec t ed byt he s t i pul at i on. Id

. at10 66 –6 7. T he C ou rtsugg est ed thatth is

17m ark s, cit ati o n , an d alt era ti o n o m itted). T he Ei ght h C i r cui t , bas ed on i t s r eas oni ng i n Tol l i ver , has 18 no w exp l i ci t l yhe ld th a ta careeroff end er w ho recei ves a § 4A 1. 3 dow nw ar d departur e i s n o tel i gi bl e fora s ent ence re d u c tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B l ackm on , 58 4 F
. 3 d 1115, 1 1 1 6

– 1 7 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T hough t he Sec o nd C i r cui tdi d notexpl i ci t l ydi s cus s t he 19 A p p li ca ti o n Instruc ti ons i n M cG ee , i tn o n e th e l e s s concl uded that the p o li cysta tem en t i n § 1 B 1
. 1 0 is am b igu o u s as to w h ethe r a 27 co n clus ion w o u ld ap p lyeq u all yw ith resp ec t to c are er o ff en d ers w ho r ece i ved § 4A 1. 3 departur es , and expr es s ed di s agr eement w i t h t he Second C i r cui t ’ s contr aryconcl us i on i n McG ee . I d. 18 a t 1 0 6 6
. T he Si xt h and Tent h C i r cui tC our ts h av e fol l ow ed the r eas oni ng i n Tol l i ver . See U ni t ed Stat es v. P em br ook , — F. 3d

— , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 4 9 9 6 5 6 , at * 3– 4 (6th C ir

. Ju n e 11 , 2 0 1 0 ); U ni t ed St at es v. D ar t on , 5 9 5 F
. 3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 4

– 9 5 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ). A c c o rd in g to th e se C irc u it C o u rts, a ll d e p a rtu re s p ro v id e d f o r in t h e G ui del i nes m us tbe appl i ed after t he “a ppl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” has been c al cul at ed, t hus for ecl os i ng t he pos s i bi l i t y of a departur e t o t h e “ a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e r ange. ” See Pem br ook , 2010 W L 2499656, at*4; D ar t on , 5 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 4
. T he Four t h C i r cui t , how ever , has concl uded thatt he

“ p lain t e x t” o f

th e A p p lica tio n In stru c tio n s c o m p e ls th e o p p o site c o n c lu s io n . Munn , 595 F. 3d at193–94. A s t he Mu n n C o u rt 19reduced sent ence is perm i ssi ble “w here t he d efen dan t ’s pr edepar t ur e s ent enci ng r ange i s found w i t hi n t he cr ack c ocai ne g u id e lin e s .” 5 5 3 F .3 d a t 2 2 9 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l)

. I n C ardo sa , t he Fi r s tC i r cui t di d not expl i ci t l ydi s cus s t he A ppl i cati on I ns t ruct i ons ort he pol i cys t at ementi n § 1B 1. 10. 606 F. 3d 16. 28 p o in ts o u t, ste p (i) o f

th e A p p lica tio n In stru c tio n s re f e rs o n lyto d e p a r tu r e s c o n t a i n e d i n “ P a r tK o f Ch a p t e rF i v e , ” U. S
. S
. G. § 1B 1. 1( i ) , s uch as a depa r tur e fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance under § 5 K 1 .1
. See M

unn , 595 F. 3d at193 n. 11. B y contr as t , s t ep ( f) of the I ns t ruct i ons di r ect s a sent enci ng cour tt o appl y“Par tA of C hapt erFour ”— w hi ch parti ncl udes t he depa r tur e author i zed u n d er § 4 A 1
. 3

— b ef

o re a “gui del i ne r ange” is ev en ment i oned in th e A p p lic a tio n In s tru c tio n s (a t s te p (g ))

. See U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1 .1 (g ); Munn , 5 9 5 F. 3 d a t 1 9 2

– 9 3
. Th u s , u n l i k e t he s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur e w e cons i der ed i n D oe , t he A p p lica tio n In stru c tio n s a p p e a r to d ire c t se n ten c in g c o u rts to a p plya § 4 A 1. 3 d eparture atst ep (f), t w o st eps bef or e a d ef en d an t’ s “a p p li ca b le gu ideli ne r an g e” h as b ee n set at st ep (h). W e agr ee w i t h t he Four t h C i r cui tt hat , underone pl aus i bl e r eadi ng of the A ppl i cat i o n I ns t ruct i ons , s ent enci ng co u rt s are d ir e c ted to ap p ly§ 4 A 1
. 3 d ep artures at st ep (f). In d e e d , th is s e e m s to f

lo w f ro m c o m m o n s e n s e . S e c tio n 4 A 1 .3 ( as cons t rued i n Shoupe ) and the ca r eeroffe nderenha n cement i n § 4B 1. 1 bot h m ayaff ecta def

endant ’ s offe ns e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory
— and, as w e r eas oned i n S h o u pe , be c a u s e t h e “ ‘ j u mp i n t o t h e c a r e e ro f f e n d e rc a t e g o r y[ i s ] done29 i n one s t ep, ’ ” perm i t t i ng a depa r tur e i n bot h o ff en se l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryunder§ 4A 1. 3 “i s r eas onabl e s i nce the d i s t r i c tc o u r t[ i s ] o n l y undoi ng t he one s t ep. ” 35 F. 3d at838 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ow s er , 9 4 1 F .2 d 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 6 (1 0 th C i r . 1991) ) ( emphasi s added)

. B y contr as t , a § 5K 1. 1 s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur e does not“undo” a nyG ui del i nes app l i cat i on d e c isio n s. R a th e r, th a t d e p a rtu re p e rm its a c o u rt to se t a s ent ence o u ts i de the “a ppl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” bas ed on “a s peci fi c fa ct or( t he def endant ’s cooper at i on) t hatw as not acc ount ed fori n t he bas i c gui del i nes cal cul at i on. ” R oa- Medi na , 607 F. 3d at259. T h o u g h w e bel i eve the Four t h C i r cui t ’ s r eadi ng of t he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons i s pl aus i bl e, w e ca nnotconcl ude that th e In stru c tio n s u n a m b ig u o u slyc o m p e l th is c o n c lu sio n , a s itis n o t entir elyclea r th at st ep (f) en co m p asse s a d o w n w ard d e p a rtu re u n d e r § 4 A 1 .3 . S e c tio n 4 A 1 .3 is a p o licysta tem e n t, and s t ep ( i ) i ns t ruct s s ent enci ng cour t s to consi der“anyot her pol i cy s t at ement s . . . i n t he gui del i nes t hat m i ght w arr ant co n side ration in im p o sing sen tenc e.” U
. S
. S
. G
. § 1 B 1
. 1 (i ). T hus , one cou ld i nt erpr ett he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons as di r ect i ng s ent enci ng cour t s t o appl y a § 4A 1. 3 departur e att he fi nal s tep (s t ep ( i ) ) , aft ert he “a ppl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” has a lr e a d yb e e n c a lc u la te d

. See Pem br ook , 2010 W L 2499656, at *5; Munn , 5 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 9 6

– 9 7 (D u n c a n , J ., d is s e n tin g ). T h is co m p eti n g interpre tat ion o f § 1B 1
. 1 w o u ld be m o re compel l i ng i f s t ep ( i ) of the A p p li ca t i on I ns t ruct i ons20 W e ac know l edge that step (f) of the A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons

— w hi ch di r ect s s ent enci ng cour ts t o det erm i ne a defe nd ant’ s “ cr i m i nalhis t or y categor y as s peci fi ed i n Par tA of C hapt erFour , ” U
. S. S. G
. § 1 B1. 1 ( f ) ( e mph a s i s added)

— does not expr es s l yi ncl ude the § 4A 1. 3 dow nw ard de par tur e that F lem m ing re c e ived , w h ich a lso inc lud ed a v erti ca l do w n w ard d ep arture in o ff

en se lev el. H o w ev e r, th e v erti ca l do w n w ard departur e i n o ff

en s e l evel i n Fl emm i ng’ s cas e w as t he pr oduct

30 e n c o m p a ss e d th e f

u ll u n iv e rse o f

“ o th e r p o licysta tem e n ts” in t he G u i del i nes “thatm i ghtw arr antcons i der at i on i n i m pos i ng s ent ence . ” U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 1( i )

. B u t tha t i s nott he ca s e. For e x a m p le, s tep (h ) o f

th e In stru c tio n s s p e c if ica llyd ire c ts s ent enci ng cour t s t o appl y“part s B t hr ough G of C hapt erFi ve” of the G uidel i nes, w hich part s i nclude several po l i cyst at em ents
. See U
. S. S. G
. § 5B 1. 3( c) , ( d) , ( e) ; § 5D 1. 3( c) , ( d) , ( e) ; § 5E 1. 5; § 5F1. 7; § 5G 1. 3( c)

. A ccor di ngl y , s t ep ( i ) ’ s r efe r ence t o “other pol i cys t at ement s ” does notfor ecl os e the pos s i bi l i t y t hat s t ep ( f) encompas s es t he dow nw ar d departur e author i zed byt he pol i cy s ta te m e n t in § 4 A 1 .3
. I n t he end, w e conc l ude t hat t he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons a r e a mbi gu ou s a s t o the s t e p a tw hi c h a s e nt e nc i ng c ou r tmu st appl ya § 4A 1. 3 dow nw ar d departur e. T he I ns t ruct i ons do not cl ear l yr equi r e t he departur e t o be appl i ed after th e “ a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” is c a lcu la te d (a s th e S ix th , E ig h th , an d T e n th C i r cui t s have c oncl uded) , nordo t heycl ear l y requi r e the departur e t o be appl i ed bef or e t he “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” is calcu lat ed (as the F o u rth C ir cu ith as c o n c lud ed ). 20of a j udi ci al i nt erpr et at i on of § 4A 1. 3 t hatt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on m aynothave a nt i ci pat ed w hen i tadopt ed that p ro v is io n . C

f

. Shoupe , 3 5 F. 3d at838 ( not i ng t hat“[t ] he lang u ag e m ak es clea r th at a n o v erstated crim inal h ist o rytr igg ers d e p a r tu r e s u n d e r § 4 A1. 3 , b u t d o e s n o t ma k e c l e a rt hat s uch d e p a r tu r e s a r e li m it e d to th e c r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y” ); s e e als o U nited S t ates v. Sa sh , 396 F. 3d 515, 523 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( not i ng t hat“[a ] G ui del i ne may appl y i n s i tuat i ons notcont empl at ed by t he backgr ound comm ent ary t o t he G ui del i ne”)

. I ndeed, t hatt he C o m m issi o n inten d ed § 4 A 1
. 3 to au th o ri z e d o w n w ard departur es i n cr i m i nal hi s t or y cat egoryonl yi s confi r m ed byt he 2 0 0 3 am en d m en t t o § 4 A 1
. 3 , w h ich, as w e d iscu ss in P art I I I
. B
. 2, overr i des ourdeci s i on i n Shoupe

. In a n ye v e n t, th o u g h th e d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re in b o th offe ns e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryt hatFl emm i ng r ece i ved ( as a r es ul tof Shoupe ) i s notexpr es s l ycont empl at ed by t he l anguage of s t ep ( f) , t hatdoes notans w erw hethert he C o m m issi o n n o n ethe less inten d ed that § 4 A 1 .3 d o w n w ard d e p a rt u re s b e a p p lie d a t th a t s te p . C f

. Munn , 595 F. 3d at192 ( “B eca us e of s ect i on 4A 1. 3’ s pl ace m ent
. . . , t he C om m i s s i on m os t l i kel y i nt ended for t he cour t t o gr antan O verr epr es ent at i on D epartur e bef

or e det erm i ni ng t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, as par tof i t s cal cul at i on of the cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat ego r y . ”) (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l)

. T he bot t om l i ne forus i s t hi s : w e s ee not hi ng i n t he A p p lica tio n In stru c tio n s th a t c o m p e ls th e c o n c lu sio n th a t a § 4A 1. 3 dow nw ar d departur e mustbe ap pl i ed ats t ep ( i ) ( t he f in a l s te p ) r a th e r t h a n s te p (f ). 31 A ccordi ng l y , the A pp l i cat i on Instruct i on s do n ot, byt hem sel ves, ans w erw hetherFl emm i ng’ s “appl i cabl e g u i del i ne r ange” i s t hat32 s etbyC r ack Cocai n e G u i del i nes ort he C ar eerO ffe nder G uidel i nes. 2
. T h e 2 0 0 3 A m e n d m e n t t o t h e § 1 B 1 .1

C o m m en tary O u r concl us i on i n D oe t hat the d efen dan t s’ “app l i cab le gui del i n e r a n g e [ s ] ” wer e the mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence s w as based n ot onl yon ou r r eading o f t he A pp l i cat i on Instruct i on s, butalso o n t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s comm ent aryt o t he p o licys ta te m e n t in § 1 B 1 .1 0 , w h ich stro n g lysu g g e sts th a t a s e n ten c e re d u c tio n is n o t au th o riz e d w h e re a d e f e n d a n t is s ubj ectt o a mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence : [A ] r educt ion i n t he def endant ’ s t erm of i mp r i s o n me n ti s n o ta u t h o r i z e d u n de r 18 U. S
. C. § 3582( c) ( 2) and i s not cons i s t ent w i t h thi s pol i cy sta tem e n t if . . . [ th e re tro a c tiv e a m e n d m e n t in ques t i on] does not have the ef fec tof l ow er i ng t he defe ndant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r a n g e bec aus e of the o p era ti o n o f a n o th er g u ideline o r st atuto ry pr ovi s i on ( e. g. , a s t at ut or y m andat or

y m i ni m um t er m of i m pr is onm ent). D oe , 5 6 4 F. 3 d a t312 ( q u o t i ng U
. S
. S
. G
. § 1 B 1
. 1 0 cm t. 1 (A )) (firsto m issi o n , alt era ti o n , an d em p h asis in o ri g inal).33 In c o n c lu d in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t in F lem m in g ’s p o sitio n is notel i gi bl e fora sent ence r educt i on, t he Si xt h, E i ght h, and T enth C i r cui t s r el i ed hea vi l yon a 2003 a m en dm entt o t he G uidel i nes, A m end m ent 651, that appears s i m il arl yt o sug gest t hat a § 4 A1. 3 d o wnwar d d e p a r tu r e h a s n o e f f e c t on a d ef en d an t’ s “ a p p licab le gu ideline ra n g e.” In p arti cu lar, A m endment 651 added, for t he fi r s t t i m e, an expl i ci tdefi ni t i on of the t erm “depa r tur e” t o t he C om m ent ary t o U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 1: “D epartur e” means ( i ) forpurpos es ot hert han t hos e s p eci fi ed i n s ubdi vi s i on ( i i ) , i m pos i t i on of a s ent ence out s i de the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange orof a s ent ence t hati s ot herw ise di ffe r entfr om t he gui del i ne s ent ence ; and ( i i ) forpurpos es of § 4A 1. 3 ( D epartur es B as ed on I nadequa cyof C r i m i nal H i s t or yC at egory ) , as s i gnm entof a cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ryother t han t he o t herw i se ap p li ca b le crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry in o rd e r to eff ecta s ent ence out s i de t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra n g e . U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 c m t. n . 1 (E ) ( 2 0 0 3 ). T h is n e w d e f

in iti o n o f

“ d e p a rtu re ” a p p e a rs to in d ica te t hata § 4A 1. 3 dow n w ard d epar tur e i s a depa r tur e fr om , r ather than to, th e “ a p p li ca b le gu ideline ra n g e,” as the c o m m en tary n o w sta tes th a t a § 4 A 1 .3 d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re is a p p lied “ in or dert o eff

ecta s ent ence out

s i de the appli cabl e gui del i neT he Si xt h C i r cui tC our ti n P em br ook fo u n d fu rth er su p p o rt 21 fori t s concl us i on i n t he pol i cys t at ementi n § 1B 1. 1 0 , w hi ch inclu d es a n ex ce p ti o n to the g en era l ru le th at a d ef e n d a n t’ s se n ten c e m a yn o t b e re d u c e d to a ter m o f im p riso n m e n t “th a t is le s s th a n th e m in im u m o f th e a m e n d e d g u id e lin e ra n g e ,” U
. S
. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10( b) ( 2) ( A ) , w her e the “or i gi nal t erm of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed w as l es s t han the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent pr ovi ded byt he gui del ine r ange a ppl i cabl e t o t he def endantat t he t i m e of s ent enci ng, ” i d. § 1B 1. 10( b) ( 2) ( B )

. I n s uch a ci r cumst ance , “a r educt i on compar abl yl es s t han the amended gui del i ne ra nge . . . m aybe appr opr i at e. ” I d. ; P em br ook , 2010 W L 2 4 9 9 6 5 6 , at * 3 (re a so n in g th a t th is p ro v isio n “ sp e c if ica lly r efe r s t o t he def

endant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange a s t he gui del i ne r ange thatappl i ed bef or e t he s ent enci ng cour tdeci ded to d e p a rt . . . d o w n w a rd ” ). W e di s agr ee. Sect i on 1B 1. 10( b) ( 2) ( B ) s heds no l i ghton w hata def

endant ’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i s i n t he cont ext of a § 4A 1. 3 departur e; i t s i m pl y pr ovi des t hat , w her e thatr ange has bee n l ow ered by a retroact i ve am end m ent t o the G uidel i nes, “a r educt i on compar abl [e] ” t o t hatw hi ch the def endantr ece i ved athi s i ni t i al s ent enci ng— e. g. , a r educt i on fors ubs tantia l as s i s t ance un d er§ 5K 1. 1— m aybe appl i ed t o t he amended G u i d e l in e s ra n g e . See M cG ee , 55 3 F
. 3d at22 8. N othi ng in § 1 B 1 .1 0 (b )( 2 )( B ) f

o re c l o s e s th e p o s s ib ility th a t a § 4 A 1 .3 dow nw ar d departur e, u n l i ke otherki nds of depa r tur es , i s appl i ed i n det erm i ni ng a def

endant ’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ”

34 r ange . ” I

d. (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e S ix th , E ig h th , an d T e n th C ir c u its s e iz e d o n t h i s d e f in itio n to c o n c lu d e th a t a § 4 A 1 .3 departur e has no eff

ecton t he “a ppl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” for a c are er o ff

en d er. See Tol l i ver , 570 F. 3d at1066 ( ci t i ng t he

2135 defi ni t i on of “depa r tur e” a dded i n 2003 and conc l udi ng t hatt he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons “ef fec t i vel y defi ne al l departur es t o be o u tsid e th e ‘a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ’” ); s ee al s o P em br ook , 2010 W L 2499656, at*4; D ar t on , 5 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 4
. H ow ever , w e agr ee w i t h t he F our t h C i r cui t t hatanother G ui del i nes pr ovi s i on notcons i der ed byt he Si x t h, E i ght h, or T enth C i r cui t s

— § 1B 1. 11— pr ecl udes us fr om cons i der i ng t he 2 0 0 3 d ef

init ion o f “ d ep arture” in d eterm inin g F lem m ing ’s el i gi bi l i t yfora s ent ence r educt i on. Sect i on 1 B 1. 11 pr ovi des t hat [t ] he G ui del i nes M anual i n eff ecton a part i cul ar d a te s h a ll b e a p p lied in its e n tirety . T h e c o u rt sh a ll n o tappl y , forexampl e, one gui del i ne s ect i on fr om o n e edi t i on of the G ui del i nes M anual and another gui del i ne sec t i on fr om a di ffe r entedi t i on o f th e G u id e lin e s M a n u a l. H ow ever, i f a co urt appl i es an ear l i eredi t i on of the G ui del i nes Manual , the cour ts hal lcons i ders ubs equent a m e n dm e n ts, to th e ex ten t th a t su c h a m e n dm e n ts ar e clar i f yi ng r atherthan s ubs t ant i ve c hange s. U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1
. 1 1 (b) ( 2) ( emphasi s added)

. Fl emm i ng w as sent enced u n d er the 2 00 1 ed i t i on of the G uidel i nes. A ccordi ng l y , w e m ust c o n sid e r A m end m ent 651 if i ti s a
“ c la ri f y in g ” a m e n d m e n t. I

d. H ow ever , i f the 2003 def i n it i on m ake s a “ s u b s t a n t i v e c h a n g e [ ] ” t o t h e Gui d e l i n e s , we ma y notT hus , had Fl emm i ng been sen tenced undera pos t
- 2003 22 edi t i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , he coul d nothave r ece i ved t he hor i zont al and vert i cal dow nw ar d departur e thatt he D i s t r i ct C o ur tgr ant ed hi m ats ent enci ng; r ather , he w oul d have be en e lig ib le to re c e iv e (a t m o st) a o n e -le v e l d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re in c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry. See U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4 A 1
. 3 (b)(3 )(A ). T h is co n clus ion h o lds e v en if A m e n d m en t 65 1 w ere 23 i n t e n d e d b yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n to b e c la ri f y in g . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. G oi nes , 357 F. 3d 469, 474 ( 4t h C i r . 2004) ( “Even i f an a m endment i s des i gned m ere l yt o el uci dat e the 36 c o n s id e r i t. I

d. ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Mar m ol ej os , 140 F. 3d 488, 491 ( 3d C i r . 199 8 ) ( cour t s m us tdet erm i ne w hetheran a m e n d m e n t “ c la r i

f i ed the e x ist ing co m m en taryin the G u ide l i nes or s ubs t ant i vel

y change d it s m ea n ing ”) (em p h ase s in o ri g inal). “G en era ll y , if [a n ] am en d ed g u ide lin e a n d co m m en tary o v e rru le[ ] a p rio r ju d icia l co n stru c tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s, it is s ubs t ant i ve; i f i tconfi r m s our pr i orr eadi ng of the gui del i nes and does notdi s turb pr i orpr ece dent , i ti s cl ar i fy i ng. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D i az , 245 F. 3d 294, 303 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. W e r ece nt l yhel d t hat A m endment 651 overr i des ourhol di ng i n Shoupe becau se, as a r es ul tof the new defi ni t i on of “de par tur e, ” § 4A 1. 3 now a u t h o r i z e s a d e p a r tu r e i n c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o n l y. See 22 G ri er , 5 8 5 F. 3 d a t1 4 3
. Th u s , b e c a u s e t h e 2 0 0 3 d e f i n i t i on w o rk e d a s u b s ta n tiv e c h a n g e in th e la w , i

. e. , i toverrul ed our i nt erpr et at i on of § 4A 1. 3 i n Shoupe , A m end m en t 6 51 i s a s ubs t ant i ve amendm ent t hat w e m ay not cons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hetherFl emm i ng i s el i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on. A ccord 23or i gi nal i nt entof the C om m i s s i on, w e w i l l r egar d i tas su b sta n tiv e if

it co n f licts w ith o u r p re c e d e n t.”); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. C i ans cewski , 8 9 4 F
. 2 d 7 4 , 7 8 n . 1 3 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ We do nots ugges tt hatt he Sent encing C om m i s s i on, bydecl ar i ng t hat su b st anti ve ch ang es ar e i ntended m erel yas cl ari fi cat i on s, ca n am en d the g u idelines retroac ti v ely

. ”). T he Tent h C i r cui t C our t al s o r el i ed on t he 2003 def i ni t i on 24 of “d eparture” i n it s D ar t on deci s i on, t hough i ti s uncl earw hi ch edi t i on of the G ui del i nes w as us ed w hen the def enda n t i n t hat c a s e w a s s e n te n c e d

. See 5 9 5 F. 3 d a t1 1 9 6 ( n o t i n g t h a tt he d e f e n d a n t p led g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te cr ack coca i ne i n N ovember 2005, but noti dent i fy i ng t he edi t i on o f th e G u id e lin e s u s e d a t s e n te n c in g ). 37 Munn , 5 9 5 F
. 3 d at 19 4 (no ti n g that A m en d m en t 65 1 “d id m o re t han s i mpl yc l a r i f

yt h e Gui d e l i n e s : [ i ] te f f e c t e d a s i g n i f

i cant ch an g e in t h e la w o f th is an d n ea rl yev eryo ther c ir cu it ”). I m por t ant l y , bot h t he G overnm ent and Fl emm i ng agr eed ator al ar gum entt hatt he 2003 def i ni t i on of “de par tur e” i s a s ubs t ant i ve amendm entforpurpos es of U

. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 11. In th a t li g h t, w e f

in d th e S ix th , E ig h th , an d T e n th C i r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng unper s uas i ve. I n Tol l i ver , th e E ig h th C irc u it di d notexpl ai n w hyi tw as author i zed t o cons i dert he 2003 defi ni t i on of “ departur e, ” gi ven thatt he def endanti n t hat cas e— l i ke Fl emm i ng and t he defe ndant s i n Munn , McG ee , and Ca rdosa

— w as s ent ence d undera pr e- 2003 edi t i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes. See M unn , 595 F. 3d at 193 n. 12. T he 24 defe nd ant i n the Sixt h C i rcui t ’s P em br ook dec i si on w as al soM or eover , w e not e t hat the di s s ent eri n Munn expr es s ed no 25 d i s a g r e e me n twi t h t h e ma j o r i t y ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a tU. S
. S
. G. § 1B 1. 11 pr ecl uded the C our tfr om cons i der i ng t he def i ni t i on of “depa r tur e” a dded i n 2003. 38 s ent enced undera pr e- 2003 ver s i on of the Sent enci ng G u i d e l i n e s . See Pem br ook , 2010 W L 2499656, at*1. B ut th o u g h th e S ix th C irc u it C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th e F o u rth C irc u it C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e 2 0 0 3 d e f in iti o n o f “ d e p a rtu re ” c o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d in th o se c irc u m sta n c e s, it (th e S ix th C irc u it) nonethel es s emphasi zed, w i t houtpr ovi di ng anybas i s for r ej ect i ng t he Munn C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n , tha t § 4 A 1 .3 “ [ i] n its pr es entfor m ” m akes cl eart hata dow nw ar d departur e undert hat p ro v is io n is o n e f

ro m th e “ a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e .” Id

. at 25 *4–5. 3
. T h e 2 0 0 1 V e rs io n o f § 4 A 1 .3 N o t o n l y a r e we p r e c l u d e d f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t he 2003 defi ni t i on of “de par tur e, ” the 2001 ver s i on of § 4A 1. 3, w hi ch l acke d any s uch defi ni t i on, appea r s t o di ffe rm at er i al l yfr om t he 2 0 0 3 v ersion w ith resp ec t t o w h a t c o n sti tutes a d ef en d an t’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” fol l ow i ng a depa r tur e undert hat pr ovi s i on. T he 2001 ver s i on of § 4A 1. 3 pr ovi des i n relev ant p a rt: I f r el i abl e i nfor m at i on i ndi cat es t hatt he cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egorydoes notadequa t el yrefl ectt he s er i ou snes s of the def endant ’ s pas tcr i m i nal39 c o n d u c t o r th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w ill comm i tot hercr i m es, the cour tm aycons i der i m pos i ng a s ent ence depart i ng fr om t he otherw ise appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 (2 0 0 1 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e m a jo rityin P em br ook and the di s s ent eri n Munn co n clud ed that § 4 A 1
. 3 ’s r efe r ence t o “i m pos i ng a sent ence depart i ng fr om the otherw ise appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” co n v ey s t he s ame m eani ng as t he 2003 defi ni t i on of “de par tur e, ” i

. e. , that a § 4 A 1
. 3 d ep arture d o e s n o t a f

f e c t a d e f

e n d a n t’ s “ a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e .” P em br ook , 20 10 W L 24 99 65 6, at*4 ; Munn , 5 95 F. 3d at196 (D u n c a n , J ., d is s e n tin g ). W e d i s a g r e e . T o u s , t h i s l a n g u a g e f a c i a l l y supp ort

s t he concl us i on t hat a def

endant ’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i s s et aft era dow nw ar d departur e under§ 4A 1. 3. T hati s , un dert he p lain m e a n in g o f

th e w o rd “ o th e rw ise ,” § 4 A 1 .3 a p p e a rs to cont empl at e thata n e w “appl i cabl e gui de l i n e r a n g e ” r e s ul t s fr om a dow nw ar d departur e purs uantt o t hatpr ovi s i on, r epl aci ng t he

“ o th e r w i s e appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” See U ni t ed Stat es v. Mobl ey , 9 5 6 F
. 2 d 4 5 0 , 4 5 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( “ W e c o n s t ru e t e r ms o f th e G u id e lin e s a c c o rd in g to th e ir p lain m e a n in g .” ); see al so W ebs t er ’s Thi r d N

ew I nt ’ lD i ct i onar

y 1598 ( 1971) ( t he defi ni t i ons of the adve rb “otherw i s e” i ncl ude “i n a di ffe r entw ay orm anner , ” “i n di ffe r entci r cumst ance s , ” an d “underot her condi t i ons ”)

. W er e tha tnott he ca s e, t he w or d “otherw i s e” w ou l d b e m eaningl ess, as the co ntr aryi nterpret at i on equ a lly40 w o u ld m ak e se n se if § 4 A 1
. 3 p rov ided that a c o u rtm ayd ep art
“ f r o m the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” C f

. A cce pt ance I ns . C o. v. Sl oan , 263 F. 3d 278, 283 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[I ti s an] axi om of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on t hatw heneve rpos s i ble e ac h w or d i n a s t atut or ypr ovi s i on i s t o be gi ven meani ng and nott o be tr eat ed as su rplu sag e.” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted)). T hi s r eadi ng of the 2001 ver s i on of § 4A 1. 3 i s bol s t er ed w hen w e compar e i t s t extt o pr ovi s i ons i n C hapt erFi ve of the G ui del i nes . T he pr ovi s i ons i n Par t s H t hr ough K o f C hapt er Fi ve— w hi ch court s m us tcons i deratt he fi nal step of the A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons ( s t ep ( i ) )

— s etfor t h t he ci r cumst ance s i n wh i c h a c o u r tma yi mp o s e a s e n t e n c e “ o u t s i d e ” o r“ b e l o w”

“ the appl i cabl e gui del ine r ange. ” See U. S
. S
. G. §§ 5H 1. 1–6, 1 1

– 1 2 , 5 K2
. 0 , 5 K2
. 1 2 , 5 K2
. 1 3 , 5 K2
. 1 6 , 5 K2
. 2 0 ( 20 0 1 )

. By contr as t , t he 2001 ver s i on of § 4A 1. 3 r efe r s t o a depa r tur e “f r om t he other w is e a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ,” p re su m a b ly c o n te m p la tin g th a t t h e ra n g e th a t r e s u lts f ro m a § 4 A 1 .3 departur e “‘ s ubs u m es and di s pl ace s t he otherw is e a p p lica b le gui del i ne r ange, ’ ” D oe , 564 F. 3d at311 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C ordero , 3 1 3 F
. 3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ), and t hu s becom es “ the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” A ppl y i ng t hi s r ead ing t o Fl emm i ng’ s s i tuat i on, t he C ar eerO ffe nder G uidel i nes range w as hi s “ other w is e appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, ” butw as r epl ace d by t he C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes r ange a s a re s u lt o f

th e § 4 A 1 .3 d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re .41 T hi s i nt erpr et at i on h as som e s ur fac e appe al

. W e not e, how ever , t h at n um er ous var i at i ons of the t erm “gui del i ne ran g e,” o f w hi ch “otherw i s e a p p li ca b le gu ideline ra n g e” ap p ea rs to b e o n e , ap p e a r in o th e r d e p a rtu re p ro v isio n s lo c a ted in P a rt K of C hapt erFi ve. T hes e var i at i ons i ncl ude “the r ange e s t abl i s hed byt he appl i cabl e gui del ines , ” U
. S. S. G
. § 5K 2. 0 ( 2001) , “the author i zed gui del i ne r ange, ” i d. §§ 5K 2. 1– 7 , “the gui del i ne r ange, ” i d. §§ 5K 2. 8– 1 0 , 5K 2. 14, and, m or e s i m pl y , “the gui del i nes , ” i d. § 5K 1. 1. O ther p rovi s i ons i n Par tK m ake no r efe r ence t o a “gui del i ne r ange” or t he “appl icab le gui del i ne r ange, ” i ns t ead s i m pl ynot i ng t he ci r cumst ance s t hatm i ght w arr antan upw ar d ordow nw ar d “depa r tur e, ” i d. §§ 5K 2. 17–19, or“a r educe d s ent ence , ” i d. § 5K 2. 11. It is u n d i s put ed that t h e s e d e p a r tu r e s a r e a l l a p p l i e d a t t h e f i n a l s t e p o f

t he A ppl i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons and, w hen appl i ed, r es ul t i n a s ent ence ou t si de the “app l i cable guidel i ne rang e. ” H ow ever, t hat these pr ovi s i ons do notempl oyt he t erm “t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i n des cr i bi ng s uch a departur e m ay s ugges t t hat , t hough t he G ui del i nes do notus e cons i s t entt erm i nol ogyt o des cr i be the r ange f r om w hi ch a s ent enci ng cour tm ay d ep arti n t he fi nal step , thi s fac tdoes notnece s s ar i l ys ugges tt hatanypar t i cul ar var i a t i o n was i n t e n d e d t o b e d i s p o s i t i v e , o re v e n h a ve sign ifi ca n ce , w ith reg ard to a d ef en d an t’ s eli g ibil ityfo r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n u n d e r § 1 B 1 .1 0
. I n s um , w e conc l ude thatt he t extof the 2001 ver s i on of § 4A 1. 3, l i ke the A p p l i cat i on I ns t ruct i ons , fai l s t o ans w erW e n o te th at tw o m em b ers o f th e E leve n th C ir cu itC o u rt 26 ar e of the vi ew t hatt he rul e of l eni t yi s i nappl i cabl e t o t he S en te n c ing G u idelines af ter B ooker

. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. W r ight , 6 0 7 F
. 3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( P r yo r , J
. , a n d F a y, J., co n c u rrin g ) (a rg u in g th a t “th e p u rp o se s o f th e ru le o f

le n ity s ugges t t hat i t pl ay s no r ol e i n t he i nt erpr et at i on of ad visory g u id e lin e s” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h o u g h o u r C o u rt h a s n o t (u n til t oday ) had occas i on t o appl yt he rul e of l eni t yt o t he G ui del i nes s i nce B ooker , w e n o n e th e les s h a v e a d d r e ss e d ru le- o f -le n ity 42 unambi guous l yw hetherFl emm i ng’ s “appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra n g e ” is h is p re - o r p o s t- § 4 A 1 .3 d e p a rt u re ra n g e .

4
. T h e R u le o f

L e n ity T he rul e of l eni t ypr ovi d es that“w hen ambi gui t yi n a cr i mi n a l s t a tu t e c a n n o tb e c l a r i f i e d b ye i t h e ri t s l e g i s l a t i ve hi s t or yori nfe ren ce s dr aw n fr om t he over al l s t atut or ys cheme, t he ambi gui t yi s r es ol ved i n fa vorof the def endant

. ” U

ni t ed St at es v. P ol l en , 9 7 8 F
. 2 d 7 8 , 8 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e ru le co v ers c ri m in a l p ro h ib itio n s a s w e ll a s p e n a ltie s , s ee M obl ey , 956 F. 2d at452 ( ci t i ng B i

fulco v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 4 4 7 U
. S
. 3 8 1 (19 8 0 )), a n d a p p lie s to th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Fent on , 309 F. 3d 825, 828 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “[W ] her e . . . t he [Sent enci ng] G ui del i nes do not cl ear l y cal l forenhanc ement , t he ru le o f len itysh o u ld p re v e n t th e a p p lica tio n o f a sig n if ica n tly in c re a se d se n ten c e .”); s e e a l s o Uni t e d

S t a t e s v . S i mps on , 319 F .3 d 8 1 , 8 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (n o tin g th a t “th e ru le o f le n it y is g en era ll yap p li ca b le t o the S en tenc ing G u idelines ”). 26ar gum ent s w i t houts ugges t i ng t hatt he rul e does notappl yt o t he n o w -a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s . See, e. g. , D oe , 5 6 4 F. 3 d a t3 1 4–15; U ni t ed Stat es v. Lennon , 3 7 2 F
. 3 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 9

– 4 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). I n any event , w e need not deci de i n t hi s cas e w hethert he rul e of len ityis g e n e ra lly a p p lica b le to th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s p o stBo o ker b ecaus e ( 1) t he G overnm enthas r ai s ed no s uch ar gum ent , and ( 2) her e w e ar e fac ed w i t h i nt erpr et i ng pr ovi s i ons of the G ui del i nes t hat ar e n o t a d v is o ry. See D i l l on , 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 2 6 9 4 (h o ld in g th a t B oo ker d o es n o t aff ec t th e b ind ing n ature of the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s pol i cy s t at ementi n § 1B 1. 10, w hi ch “pe r m i t s a sent ence r educt i on w i t hi n t he narr ow bounds e sta b lish e d b yth e C o m m iss io n ” ). In th a t lig h t, w e a re b o u n d to appl yourpr e- B ookerc a se law , w h ich m a k e s c lea r th a t th e ru le of l eni t ym ayappl yt o m andat or ypr ovi s i ons of the Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s . See, e. g. , Fent on , 3 0 9 F .3 d a t 8 2 8 n .3
. 43 A ppl i cat i on of the rul e of l eni t yr equi r es m or e than a di ffi cul ti nt erpr et at i ve ques t i on. R ather , “[t ] o i nvoke the rul e, we mus t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e i s a g ri evou s ambi gui t yor uncert ai nty i n t he s t atut e. ” Mus car el l o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 524 U
. S. 125, 138–39 ( 1998) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itt e d ) (em p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o C hapm an , 500 U
. S. at463. A s d i s c u s s e d , w e b e l i e v e t h e G u i d e l i n e s a r e “ g r i e v o u s [ l y] am b igu o u s [a n d ] un ce rt ain[ ]” a s to w h ethe r F lem m ing ’s

“ a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” is h is p re - o r p o s t
- § 4 A 1 .3 d e p a rt u re ra n g e . Mu sc a re llo , 5 2 4 U .S . at 1 3 9
. B e c a u se b o th i n terpre t at i ons ar e pl aus i bl e, w e appl yt he rul e of l eni t yand re s o lv e th e a m b ig u ity i n F l e m m in g ’s f a v o r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. O etken , 2 4 1 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 0 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ W h e re th ere ar e tw o pl aus i bl e r eadi ngs of a gui del i ne pr ovi s i on, w e appl yt he44 rul e of lenity and gi ve the def endantthe bene fi tof the r eadi ng th a t re su lts in th e sh o rte r se n ten c e .”); s ee al s o B i f ul co v. U ni t ed St at es , 4 4 7 U .S . 3 8 1 , 3 8 7 (1 9 8 0 ) (“ [ T ]h e to u c h sto n e o f th e ru le of l eni t yi s s t atut or y ambi gui ty . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) )

. W e j oi n t he Second C ir cu it i n t hi s r egar d. See M cG ee , 5 5 3 F .3 d a t 2 2 9 (a p p lyin g th e r u le o f len ityw h ile a c k n o w led g in g th a t “U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 c a n b e re a d to p e rm it a reduced se ntence on l yw here t he d efen dan t ’s pre-depa rt ure s ent enci ng r ange i s found w i t hi n t he cr ack c ocai ne gui del i nes ”) (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l); s ee al s o P em br ook , 2010 W L 2499656, a t * 9 (R o g e rs, J., d iss e n tin g ) (a rg u in g th a t a p p lica tio n o f th e ru le of l eni t yi s appro p r i at e i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , as “ther e i s no compel l i ng r ea son t o r ead the phr as e ‘ appl i cabl e gui del i ne range ’ t o excl ude the G ui del i ne r ange thatt he di s t r i ctcourt ac tuallyap p li ed to [ the d ef en d an t] ”). T hough t he 2003 def

i ni t i on of “de p art ur e” mayr es ol ve t hi s ambi gui t y , Fl emm i ng w as s ent ence d undert he 2001 edi t i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, and A m end m e n t 651 i s a su b sta n tiv e a m e n d m e n t th a t w e m a yn o t co n sid e r. In a n ye v e n t, the S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n ’s d ec isi o n in 2 0 0 3 to ad d a u n ifo rm defini t i on of “d eparture” t o the G uidel i nes— w hich i nc lu des a defi ni t i on s peci fi c t o § 4A 1. 3— onl y bol s t er s our co n cl us i on th a t, at lea st p rio r to 2 0 0 3 , w h a t co n stitu ted th e “ a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ran g e” fo r a c are er o ff en d er g ran ted a d o w n w ardA s n o ted , the F o u rth C irc u it co n c lu d e d th a t th e “ p lain tex t” 27 of § 1B 1. 1 un a m b i g u o u s l y d i r e c t s s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t s t o a p p l y a § 4A1. 3 d e pa r tur e a ts t e p ( f) of t he A pp l i c a t i on I ns t ruc t i on s. Munn , 5 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 9 4 . It su g g e ste d f u rth e r th a t, w e re it aut h o ri ze d t o cons i dert he 2003 def i ni t i on of “de par tur e, ” the “G ui del i nes w oul d be re nder ed ambi guous on t hi s poi nt , as t he A p p lica tio n In stru c tio n s in d ica te th a t [ a § 4 A 1 .3 ] d e p a rtu re is to b e m a d e b e f

o re c a lcu latin g th e a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e , w h ile t he comm ent aryt o t hos e i ns t ruct i ons

— t hr ough i t s l oos e us age o f th e p h ra se ‘a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ’— a rg u a b lysu g g e sts ot herw i s e. ” I

d. T he C o u rtconcl uded that , “i n t he fa ce of any s uch ambi gui t y , [i t ] w oul d be obl iged to a p p lyth e ru le o f len ity and r es ol ve the conf

l i cti n t he def

endant ’ s favor

. ” I

d. (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal). B eca us e the ques t i on i s not befor e us , w e do notdeci de w h ethe r a c are er o ff

en d er g ran ted a § 4 A 1
. 3 d o w n w ard departur e undera post- 2003 edi t i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w oul d be el i gi bl e for a s ent ence r educt i on under18 U
. S. C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. Howev e r , i n l i g h to f o u rc o n c l u s i o n t hat t he A pp l i cat i on Instruct i on s ar e a m b ig u o u s as to th e “ a p p lica b le g u i d e l i n e r a n g e ” f

o ra d e f e n d a n t i n Fl e mm i n g ’ s p o s i t i o n , we have doubt s t hat t he 2003 defi ni t i on— i n a cas e w her e i t m aybe cons i der ed— r es ul t s i n a “gr i evous ambi gui t y ” r eq ui r i ng i nvocat i on of the rul e of l eni t y . R ather , t o t he ext entt he 2003 d e f ini t i on provides cl earergu i dan ce as t o the “app l i cable g ui del i ne r ange” fora def endantgr ant ed a § 4A 1. 3 departur e, w e m a yb e re q u ire d to tre a t th a t g u id a n c e a s au th o ritativ e , a s it does not appea r t o be “i ncons i s t ent w i t h, ora pl ai nl yerr oneous 45 departur e under § 4A 1. 3, and s ent ence d bas ed on t he C rac k C o ca ine G u idelines ran g e, w as, at be st, q u it e u n clea r. 27re a d in g o f ,” th e G u id e lin e s . St i ns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 50 8 U. S. 3 6 , 3 8 (19 9 3 ). 46 W e r eac h t hi s r es ul taw ar e notonl yof the gene r al pol i ci es beh i nd r etr oact i ve amendm ent s t o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , butal s o t he par ti cul arpol i cyunder l y i ng A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6
. C

f

. Mos ka l v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 498 U
. S. 103, 108 ( 1990) ( not i ng t hatcour t s m aycons ul tt he “ m o ti v ati ng pol i ci es of t he s t atut e” i n det erm i ni ng w hether appl i cat i on of the rul e of l eni t y i s w arr ant ed (i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) )

. T he Sent enci ng R eform A ct of 1984, 98 St at
. 1987, cha rge d the S en tenc ing C o m m i s s i on w i th per i odi cal l yr evi ew i ng and r evi s i ng t he G ui del i nes , and, w her e w arr anted , author i zed t he C o m m is s i on t o r educe r etr oact i vel yt he off ens e l evel s for c e rt a in c ri m e s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § § 9 9 4 (o ), 9 9 4 (u ); s ee al s o 18 U. S
. C. § 3582( c)

. W hen the C om m i s s i on fi r s tpr om ul gat ed the G ui del i nes i n 1987, i tadopt ed off ens e l evel s forcocai ne offe ns es t hat“tr eat ed ev erygr am of cr ack c ocai ne as t he equi val entof 100 gr ams of pow dercoca i ne. ” K i m bro u g h v. Uni t e d S t a t es , 552 U
. S. 85, 96 ( 2007)

. T he C om m i s s i on l at er at t em pted t o al l eviat e t his dis pari t y and , afte r C o ng res s re p e a te d ly f

a ile d t o a c t, i d. at99, t he C om m i s s i on adopt ed A m endment 7 06 t o addr es s w hati tbel i eved w er e “ur gentand c o mp e l l i n g ” p r o b l e ms wi t h t h e 1 0 0

- t o - 1 r a t i o . U. S
. S
. G. a p p . C, am en d

. 7 0 6 , R ea so n fo r A m en d m en t ( 2 0 0 7 ). T her e i s no di s put e thatFl emm i ng w as bur dened byt he verycr ack/pow dercoca i ne di s par i t yt hatt he Sent enci ng C om m issi o n so u g h t t o rem ed yb ypr om ul gat i ng A m endment70647 and maki ng i tr etr oact i ve. A s not ed, had A m endment706 been i n for ce w hen Fl emm i ng w as s ent ence d, w e have l i t t l e doubtt he D istri ct C o u rt w o u ld h av e se t a sen tenc e w ith in tha t r an g e. In t hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e bel i eve thatr ender i ng a def endant i nel i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on— s i m pl yb ec aus e he t echni cal l y qual i fi ed as a ca r eeroffe nder , and des pi t e a D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r eas oned j udgm entt hats uch a c l assi fi cat i on w as in a p p r o p ria te b e c a u se it o v e rsta ted th e se rio u sn e ss o f h is c rim in a l h isto ry(in F lem m in g ’s c a se , b e c a u se h is tw o p re d ica te o ff e n s e s resu lt ed in m o d est p ri so n sen tenc es a n d w ere c o m m itt e d w h e n h e w a s 1 8 a n d 2 0 -y e a rs o ld )— is a n tith e tica l to t h e p o lic yc o n c e rn s th a t m o tiv a te d A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6
. See C ardo sa , 6 0 6 F .3 d a t 2 1 ; Munn , 5 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 9 5 ; McG ee , 553 F .3 d a t 2 2 9

– 3 0
.

* * * * * A p p li ca ti o n o f th e ru le o f lenity is call ed fo r on lyin rare c a s e s , a n d t h u s w e s t r e s s t h e n a r r o w n e s s o f o u rh o l d i n g . We concl ude that , undera pr e- 2003 edi t i on of t he Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s , a c a re e r o f f e n d e r w h o is g ra n te d a § 4 A 1 .3 d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re to th e C r a c k C o c a in e G u id e lin e s ra n g e is eli g ible fo r a se n tenc e re d u cti o n u n d er 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). A ccor di ngl y , w e vac at e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’ s or derand r emand t hi s cas e fort h e C our tt o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hether , and t o w hatext ent , a r educt i on i n Fl emm i ng’ s s ent ence is w a rr a n te d

.