## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 3866 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES G U Y T ON, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on.

No . 2:01- CR-53

—RudyL ozano, Judg e.
A RG UE D J UNE 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 22, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. A pp el l ant J am es G uyto n w as s e n t e n c e d f o ra c r a c kc o c a i n e o ffe n s e b e f o r e th e S u p r e me C ou rt held that the Sen ten cin g G uid eli ne s w ere ad visory i n U n i t ed S ta tes v. B o o k er, 543 U
. S. 220 (2005). G uy ton ’s gui del i ne r ange w as base d on the car eero ffender gui del i ne , U. S

. S

. G. § 4 B1

. 1 , b utthe d i s t r i c tc o ur tg r a nt e d a d ow n w ar d d e p a rt u re u n d er se c tio n 5K 1.1 ba se d on h is as si st an ce t o the g o ve r nm en t. Th e co ur t depa r te d do wn-2 N o. 09

- 3866

war d t o a s en te nc e wi thin t he r an g e f o rc r ac kc o ca i ne o ffen se s th atwoul d ha ve a ppl i ed to Guy to n abse ntthe ca r ee ro ffen derde si g na ti o n. I n l i m i ted ci rcum sta nces, 18 U

. S. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) autho

r i ze s a di st r i ct co ur t to r edu ce a se nt ence of i m pr i so nm ent i m p osed und era previ ous v er si on o fthe U ni ted St ate s S entencing Guidel i nes s o as to giv e r etr oac ti ve effec t to g ui del i ne a m en dm en ts that the S en te nc i ng Com m i ssi on has chos en to m ake r etr oac ti ve. A r educti on i s per m i tte d onl y i f“the gui del i ne r ange appli cabl e t o tha tde fe nd a nt ” h a s b e e n r e t r o acti v e l y l o we r e d. U. S

. S

. G. § 1 B1. 10( a)

. A fte r the S entencing Com m i ssi on r etr oac ti ve l y r edu ce d the g ui del i ne ranges f o rc r ac kc o ca i ne offenses , Guyton m ove d fo r a s entence r ed ucti on u n d er se c tio n 3 5 8 2 (c )(2) . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied h is mot i o n, a nd Gu y t o n ha s a pp e a l e d. W e affirm
. W e he l d in U ni t e d Sta tes v. Fo r m an , 55 3 F
. 3d 585, 58 9- 90 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , thata cra ck coca i n e offender sente nced und e r the c a r e e r o ffe nd e r g ui de l i ne wa s no t e l i g ib l e f or a r educed sentence under s ecti on 3 582( c) ( 2). The cra ck coca ine am en d m en t sim p ly d id n ot low er the d efend an t’s appli cabl e guidel i ne r ange. H er e we fac e a var i ati on o n the For m an i s s ue : wh e the ra de fe nd a nts e nt e nc e d u nd er th e career offend er guid eli ne , bu t w ith a d ow nw ard d ep artu re forsub stan tial assistan ce, i s eli gible for a red uc tion. W e h old th at, for p urp oses of section 358 2(c)(2) , the r el evantse nt en c in g r ange i s the o ne cal cul ate d before th e d efend an t received th e ben efi t o f a d o w nw ard depa r tu r e unde rCha pte r5 o fthe G uid el i ne s. The S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n h as no t r et r o ac ti ve l y r edu ce d theN o. 09

- 3866 3

ca r ee ro ffen derg ui del i ne that d et er m i ne d the g ui del i ne ran g e appl i cabl e to de fen dan t Guy to n. The r ea so ni ng of For m an applies , ther ef or e, and the dist ri ct c ourtwas r equi r ed to de ny Guy to n’ s m o ti o n.

I. The Fac t s an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d Gu yto n w as sente nced i n 200 1 for poss ess i ng cr ack coca i ne with i ntent to dist ribute i t in vi ol ati on o f 21 U. S

. C. § 84 1( a) ( 1)

. Two pr i o r fel o ny co nv i ct i o ns m eant that he quali fi ed as a car eer offender und er U. S

. S

. G. § 4 B1. 1. At tha t ti m e, the Gui del i ne s wer e co nsi der ed bindi ng, a nd Guy to n’ s ca r ee r o ffen ders ta tu s produced a guidel i ne i m pri sonm en t ra nge o f18 8 t o 235 m onths i n pri son. B as ed o n hi s s ubstanti alas si sta nce t o the g ove rnm ent in pros ecuti ng ano therpers on, the gov er nm ent m ove d fo r a down w ar d departur e under U
. S. S. G. § 5 K 1. 1 a nd r equeste d a l ess erse ntence o f13 0 m o n th s . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d th e mo t i o n a n d s en te nc ed Guy to n a s r ec o m m en ded, r emar k i ngtha t th e g o ve r nm en t was i n the b es t p ositi o n t o de te r m i ne the value of his assistan ce an d the ex ten t of th e d ow nw ard de pa r t ur e h e h a d e a r ne d. I n 2 0 0 7, the S e nt e nc i ngCo mm i s s i o n a do pt e d Ame nd

m ent 7 06, wh i ch r educed the bas e offen se l eve l s for cr ac kc o ca i ne o ffen se s. The n, wi thAm en dm en t 71 3, the Co mm i s s i o n mad e the chan g e r e t r o a c t i v e . S e e U. S

. S

. G. § 2 D1. 1( c) ; U
. S. S. G. Supp. A pp . C , Am dts. 70 6 a nd 71 3 ( 2008 )

. Invoking Am endm ent 706, Guyton m ove d to red uc e his sen ten ce u nd er 18 U .S .C

. § 3582(c)(2). The d is tr i ctc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n, o bs er vingtha t th e4 N o. 09

- 3866

am endm ent c oul d not be n efit Guyton be cause hi s o ri gi na l se nt en ce was ba se d no t o n th e cr ac k g ui deli ne b ut on his c a r e e ro ffe nd e rs t a t us a nd the s ub s t a nt i al ass ist an ce depar ture
. A m endm ent 7 06 l eft the car eer o ffe nd e rg ui de l i ne u nc ha ng e d.

II. A nalysis W e he l d i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fo r m an tha t a cra ckc o ca i ne o ffen ders en te nc ed under the c ar ee ro ffen derg ui del i ne w as not el i gibl e forr educed sentence under s ecti on 3582 ( c) ( 2)

. 55 3 F
. 3d at 589- 90. To a voi d th e h ol ding of For m an , Guyton co ntends thathi s a ctualse ntence w as “ba sed on” th e crack coc aine gu ideline, § 2D 1.1 (c ), i nstea d ofo r i n additi on t o the c ar eero ffender gui del i ne, § 4 B1. 1. H e st resse s that hi s ul ti m ate pri son ter m o f13 0 m onths fel lwithi n the ra nge that w ou ld h ave appli ed ab s e n t h i s c a r e e r o ffe n d e r s t a t u s . He s u g g e s t s tha t th e crac k guid eli ne exp lai ns the ex t e n t of the de p artu re he r ecei ved and that hi s s entence w as , a t l eas t in that col l oqui alse nse o fthe sta tutory phra se, “based o n” a se nt en cing r an g e th atwas l at erl o wer ed bythe S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n. W e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent. A s a m attero f law , a se n te n c e r e d u c tio n u n d er se c tio n 35 82 (c )(2) is una va i l ab l e to Guy to n b ec au se hi s r el ev an t g ui del i ne ran ge was e st ab l i sh ed bythe c ar ee ro ffen derg ui del i ne bef or e he re c eiv ed the benefi t o fthe departure

. Because Gu yto n’s appli cabl e guidel i ne r ange w as not change d bythe r et r o ac ti ve g ui del i ne Am en dm en t 70 6, redu cing hi s s entence would have been c on tr ar y t o the pol i cy ofN o. 09

- 3866 5 th e S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n, whi chi s th e r el ev an t i nquir y under the s tatute.

A

. The S ta tuto ry F ram ew o rk A s a ge nera lr ule , with j us t a few exce pti ons, a dist ri ct c ou rtm a y n otm od ify a te rm of im p ris on m en t o n c e it h as be en im p os ed . 18 U .S .C . § 35 82 (c ); D illo n v . U nited Sta tes , 130 S. C t. 26 83 , 268 7 (2 01 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 57 3 F
. 3d 398, 39 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09). In sec t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , Congr e s s c r e a t e d o ne n a r r o w e xc e pti o n. A di st r i ctc o ur t m aym odi fy a s en te nc e i ft wo c o ndit i ons ar e m et: fi rs t, the or i gi nal sente nc e w as “ba sed on a se ntenci ng r ange th at has s ubsequentl y b een l o we r e d b y the S e nt e nc i ng Co mm i s s i o n, ” and s e c o nd , a re du cti on would be “co nsi sten t with appli cabl e pol i cy sta tem ents i ssued bythe Se nt en ci ng Com m i ssi on. ” 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 82 (c )(2) ; D i l l on , 13 0 S

. Ct. at268 7; U nited Sta tes v. D ar t on , 595 F.3d 11 91 , 119 4 (1 0t h C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. To lliv er, 570 F.3d 106 2, 1065 ( 8th Cir. 2009); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fo r m an , 55 3 F
. 3d at 588. This sta tutory s chem e del ega tes a gr eatdealo fpow er a n d d i s c r e t i o n t o th e S e n t e n c i n gC o mm i s s i o n . T h e C o mmi s s i o n, n ot a fe de r a lc o ur t, de c i de s wh e n a n a men dm ent i s r etr oac ti ve and i ssue s p oli cy sta tem ents that ca n ma k e a s e n t e n c i n g r e d u c t i o n u n a v a i l ab l e . The Suprem e Court has confi rm ed that i n sec ti on 3 582( c) ( 2) proce edi ngs, unl i ke or i gi n al s entencing pro ceedi ngs no w gover ned by B o o k er, the Com m i ssi on’ s pol i cy sta tem ents st ill bin d th e fe d er al c ou rt s. D i l l on , 13 0 S

. Ct. at26 87- 88.6 N o. 09

- 3866 The Com m i ssi on l i sts bynum beri n U
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 10( c) the b i nd i ng pol i cy sta tem ents m aking am en d m en ts re tr oac ti ve. S ubsect ion (a) ( 2) ( B) o fthe sam e s ecti on pro hibi ts a s en te nc e r edu ct i o n i fthe a m end m en t ati ss ue “d oes not h ave th e effect of l ow ering the de fend an t’s appl i ca b l egu i de l i nerange .” (E m p h as is a d d ed .)

B. The “A pp lica ble G uid eline R a ng e” U n d er th e G u id elin es , a d efe n d an t h as on ly on e “ ap p licabl e guidel i ne r ange, ” a nd i t i s a r ange that the di str i ct cour t ca l cul ate s be f or e g ra nti ng any d epartures under C ha p ter 5 of th e G uid eli ne s. (W e d o n o t a d d ress he re w hetherthe appli cabl e guideline r ange i s e stabl i shed bef or e a ny departures f oro ver - re prese ntati on o fa defen dan t’ s cr i m i na lhi st o r y unde rs ec ti o n 4A1. 3. Thati ss ue h as sh ar p ly d ivid ed th e circ u its an d is no t be for e u s in thi s ca se. ) Fo r Gu yto n, wh o re cei ved a substa nti alas si stance departure under s ecti on 5 K 1. 1, the appli cabl e r ange w as furni shed by the c ar eero ffender gui del i ne. Ou r anal ysi s s tar ts w i th the l angu ag e ofse cti on 1 B1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B). The r efer ence ther e t o “the d efend an t’s app li cab le guideline ran ge” is si ng ular, i m ply i ngtha ta de fe nd a nth a s o nly o ne a pp l i c ab l e g ui deline range. Th a t c onc lusion is consisten t w ith th e overall st ru c tu re of th e G u id elin es , w h ic h r eq u ire u ltim at ely a d e t e r mi na t i o n o f o ne g ui de l i ne r a ng e tha t a pp l i e s to the defendant. That obser vati on, howe ve r, does not show j ust when the appl i cabl e gu id eli ne r ange i s e stabl i shed. W e turn to the conte xt i n w hi ch the phrase appears.N o. 09

- 3866 7

W e re fer to a “g enuine” departure becaus e, after B ooker, a 1 sente nc ing cou rt can im p ose a s e n t en ce ou tsid e the ap p licab le (co n tin u ed ...) F i r st, s ec ti o n 1 B1. 10 t ak es f o rg r an ted th ata de fen dan t w ho r ecei ved a “dow nw ar d dep ar ture ” in the pre- B o o k er er a re c eiv ed a s p e c ific t er m of im p ris on m en t b elo w h is ap p lica b le r a ng e . S pe c i fi c a l l y, s e c t i o n 1 B1

. 1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B) sta t e s tha t i f a di s t r i c t c o ur t c o ns i de r s a mot i o n und er sect i on 3 582( c) ( 2) pursuan t to a r etr oac ti vel y- am ended g ui del i ne r an g e, the c o ur t m ay se nt en ce b el o w the am en d ed ran ge on ly if “t h e o rig in al t e r m of i m prison m e nt im po sed was l es s th anthe t er m o fi m pr i so nm en t p ro vi ded by t h eg u i d e l i n era n g ea p p l i c a b l et o th ed e f e n dant at th e t im e o f se n te n c in g.” (E m p h as is a d d ed .) Th is p ro visi o n a ss um es tha t “the a ppl i cabl e g ui del i ne r ange” i s th e ra nge e stabl i shed before a dist ri ct c ourtdeci des to d ep ar t o r va ry d ow n w ar d

. E.g
. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe m b r ook, 609 F. 3d 381, 38 4- 85 ( 6th Ci r. 20 10)

. Contr a, U nited Sta tes v. Flem m ing, 61 7 F .3d 25 2, 26 6 n .2 0 (3d C ir. 20 10 ); U nited S t a tes v. M cG ee, 5 53 F
. 3d 22 5, 2 28 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 9)

. The p ro vis ion in s u b se c tio n (b)(2 )(B ) m ak es l i t t l e s en se if th e d ep ar tu re its elf is t re at ed as p ro vid in g t h e a p p lica b le “r an ge .” Se cond, and m or e i m port ant, the str ucture ofthe Gu i del i nes m ake s cl earthatthe appli cabl e guidel i ne r ange i s the o ne cal c u l ate d bef or e a ny departure und erse ction 5K 1.1. Th e G uid eli ne s p erm it a g en uin e d ep artu re u n d er se c tio n 5 K 1.1 an d oth er p ro vis ion s fo u n d in Cha pte r5 o nl y a fte rthe c o ur t ha s al r ea dy det er m i ne d “ th e appl i cabl e g ui del i ne r an g e. ” S ec ti o n 1 B1.1 la y s o utthe 18 N o. 09

- 3866

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 guid el ine range f or re asons i nd epend ent ofthe G uideli n es the m selv es. Ef fec t i ve N ove m ber 1, 20 10 , the Se nt en c ing C om m i s s i on 2 am ended and re organized se ct ion 1B1.1 t o em phasize the thre e basics teps i n se ntenci ng af ter B ooker : first, u n d er su b se ct io n (a), c a l c ul a t e the a ppl i c a bl e g ui de l i ne r a ng e ; s e c ond, un de r s ub

s e c t i o n ( b ) , c o n s i d e r d e p a r t u r e s u n d e r th e G u i d e l i n e s th e ms e l ve s ; thi rd, un de r s ub s e c t i on( c ) , c on s i de r the o the r a pp licab le fa c t o rs un d er 18 U .S. C

. § 35 53 (a). W e cite in th is opi ni on the ne w am en ded or gan i za t i on ofsection1B1

. 1. The am en d ed v e r si o n o f section 1B 1.1 w as in lar g e p art a resp on se t o a l i ne ofour c as es , be gi nni ng wi th U ni t ed Sta t es v. Johnson , 42 7 F .3d 423 , 42 6 (7th C ir. 20 05 ), sa y i n g tha t B ooker rendered the Gui de l ine s ’ c on c e pto fde pa r t ur e “ ob s ol e t e . ” S e e Am e nd

m en t 741 to the Sen te n cing G u id eline s ( reso lv ing circu it split re gar di ng a ppl i c at i on m ethodolo g y f or di s t ri c tc our t s )

. I n a strictly leg al sen se, the “o b solete” d escrip tio n w as acc u rate as app li ed to app el lat e re view o fa s ente nce, but the “obsolet e” l i n e o fc a s e s s h o u l d n o td i s c o u r a g e d i s t r i c tc o u r t s fr om t aki ng ge nui ne gui danc e f ro m al l the Guide l i ne s , i nc l udi ng thei r d ep arture provisi ons, as requi red und er the am ended se ct ion 1B1. 1. or d er in w h ich co u rt s a p p ly th e g u i d e l i n e p ro vis ion s. In th e fi r st seve r als te ps, the di st r i ctc o ur t ca l cul at es the defe nd ant’ s t ota lo ffen se l eve land cr i m i nalhi sto rycat egory a nd deter m i nes the co rr espond in g gui del i ne r ange. U
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 1( a) ( 1)

- ( a) ( 8)

. A fterthe cour t d ete rm i nes 2 the r ange, i t “shal l then consi der Part s H and K ofChapter Fi ve, S peci fi c Offender Ch ar acte ris ti cs a nd Departur es, an d a ny o th erpo l i cys ta te m en ts o rc o m m en tary i n theN o. 09

- 3866 9 g ui del i ne s th atmightwar r an t c ons i der at i o n in i m po sing se nt en ce. ” § 1B1

. 1(b)

. The c o ur t th enmove s be y o nd the Gui del i ne s a nd co nsi ders othe r f acto rs under 18 U

. S. C

. § 3553(a). See § 1B1

. 1(c). W i thi n thi s str ucture, a sect i on 5K1.1 departu re n eces sar i l y c o mes a ft e rthe e s t ab l i s hme nto fa s pe c i fi c g ui del i n e ra n ge ap p lica b le t o th e d efe n d an t. Fl e m m i ng, 61 7 F.3 d at26 2-6 4; Pembr ook, 609 F.3d at38 5; D ar t on , 59 5 F. 3d at 1197; se e a l so To lliv er, 570 F.3d at10 65 -66 . Th u s, a car eero ffender w h ose i m pri sonm ent t er m f al l s be l ow h is c a reer offen d er range on ly by virtue of a d ep artu re und erPar t 5 H o r Part 5K cannotr ecei ve a r educti on und erse c tio n 35 82( c) ( 2) unl ess the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on r etr oac ti vel y a m ends the car eero ffender gui del i ne. Thi s c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n twi th d e c i s i o n s o fthe S i xth, Ei g hth, and Te nth Ci r cui ts , whi chho l d tha t th e onl y a pp l i cabl e guidel i ne r ange i s the o ne es tabl i shed be f o r e an y de pa r t ur es. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Ha m eed, 61 4 F. 3d 259 ( 6th Ci r. 20 10); P em b r ook, 60 9 F
. 3d 381 ; D ar t on , 59 5 F .3d 11 91 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bla ck m on , 58 4 F
. 3d 1115 ( 8th Cir

. 20 09); U n i t e d S ta tes v. C o llier, 581 F.3d 755 ( 8th Cir. 2009 ); To lliv er, 57 0 F
. 3d 1062

. Ou r dec ision does not co nfl i ctwi ththe Th i r d Ci r cui t’ s dec i si o n in Fl e m m i ng, w hi ch hel d that the appli cabl e guidel i ne r an ge i s e stabl i shed bef or e a ny departure u n der s ecti on 5 K 1. 1 for substa nti alas si sta nce, but afterany departure under sect ion 4A 1.3 for over-represe nt atio n of the d efend an t’s c rim in al h ist or y. Fl e m m i ng, 6 17F
. 3d at2 62

- 64

. The El ev en thCi r cui t, t o o, h as su g g es te d i n di ct a th ati t m i g ht adopt di ffer ent a pp ro aches f ordepart u re s m ade under10 N o. 09

- 3866 Ch apter s 4 a nd 5. S ee U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 54 1 F

. 3d 1323 , 1329 -30 (11th C ir. 2008). Ou rde c i s i o n i s i n t e ns i o n wi th tho s e o fth e F i r s t, S e c o nd , and Four th Ci rcui ts. S ee U nited St a t es v. C a rdo sa , 60 6 F.3 d 16 (1s t C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M unn , 5 9 5 F
. 3d 183 ( 4th Cir

. 20 10 ); M cG ee, 553 F.3d 22 5 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ). A lthough the defendant i n each o f t hese case s had r ecei ved a departure und erse cti on 4 A 1. 3 ins te ad of ori n additi on to a d eparture und erse cti on 5 K 1. 1, so m e o fthe l anguage i n thes e deci si ons m i gh t n ot be l i m i ted to departur es und er sect i on 4A 1. 3. To the exte nt that C a rdo sa , M unn , a nd M cG ee m ay be rea d to p er m it a se n te n c e re d u c tio n in ci rcum sta nces l i ke Gu yto n’s , we re spectfull y d i sag re e wi th th e m. Fo r n ow , th ou gh , w e g ra p p le n o fu r th er w ith th e d ec isi ons author i zi ng sente nce re du cti ons f ord efendants w ho rece ived a dep artu re un d er section 4A 1 .3 to a term w i thi n th e cr ack- coca i ne r ange that w oul d have a pp l i ed i n the abs ence ofcar eer - offender sta tus. Fi rs t, nei ther Card os a nor M cG ee an aly ze s th e appl i ca ti o n ins truct i o ns i n sec ti on 1 B1. 1, so we w ould n ot c onsi der them per suasi ve on t h is i ssue. S ee C a rdo sa , 606 F.3d 16 ; M cG ee, 53 3 F.3d 225

. Se c o n d , the n ub of Fl e m m i nga nd M unn

— that a “d ep ar t u re ” u n d er se c tio n 4A 1.3 is ac tu ally a st ep in c alcu l a t i n gth e d e fe n d a n t ’ s c r i mi n a lh i s t o r y c a t e g o r ya nd thus pre cedes the e stabl i shm ent o fthe appli cab le gui del i ne r ange

— ha s n o b e a r i ngo n o urc o nc l us i o n that th e ap p li cab le guideline ran ge is es tablished before any depar ture s und er Ch apter 5. Se e U
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 1 ( a) ( 6) thro ugh ( a) ( 8) , (b) , and ( c); Flem m i ng, 61 7 F
. 3d at 262- 64N o. 09

- 3866 11 ( e xp l a i ningtha tde pa r t ur e u nd e rs e c t i o n 5 K1

. 1 i s ma de a t o l d st ep (i) of th e a p p lica tio n ins tr u c tio n s, w h ich is no w st ep ( b) , b ut d ep ar tu r e unde rs ec ti o n 4 A1. 3 m i g ht be m ad e at old step ( f) , w hich i s now step ( a)(6) , before the guidel i ne r ange i s e stabl i shed at ol d step (h ), which i s no w st ep ( a) (8)) ; M unn , 59 5 F
. 3d at 192 ( “Because of sect i on 4 A 1. 3’ s pl acem ent, however, the Com m i ssi on m ostl i kel y intended fo r the c ourtto grant an Over re presenta ti on Departure befo re d et er m in in g t h e a p p lica b le g u i d e l i n e r a n g e , a s p a r t o fi t s c a l c u l a t i o n o fth e c r i minal history category.”). Fi nal l y, we decl i ne to r el y o n a defi ni tio n added to th e G u i d e l i n e s i n 2 0 0 3 i n Am e n d me n t6 5 1 th a ts o me re aders m i ght ha ve thou gh t w oul d res ol ve thi s ca se. Since 20 03, A pp l i cati on N ote 1( E) t o sect i on 1 B1.1 has defined a “depar ture ” a s the “i m posi ti on o fa sente nce o u ts id e t h e a p p lica b le gu id elin e ra n ge .” W h er e t h is d efin itio n h old s, th e a p p lic a b l e g u id elin e ra n ge is al w ays es tabl ish ed befor e a ny departures can be m ade. Th e cir c ui t s a r e di v i de d o n the a pp l i c ab i l i t y o fAmen dm ent 6 51 to sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) p ro ceedi ngs fo r defe nd ants l i k e Gu y t o n who we r e s e nt e nc e d be f o r e i twa s a do pt e d. Co mpare Pembr ook, 60 9 F
. 3d at 385- 86, wi th Fl e m m i ng, 6 1 7F
. 3 d a t2 6 6

- 6 8 , a nd M u nn , 5 95 F. 3d at1 93

- 94
. Our st r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s s u ffi c e s t o s u p p o r t o u r h o l d i n g, a nd th e p a r t i e s h a v e n o ta d d r e s s e d A me n d me n t6 5 1

. We l eave that i ssue f or a case i n w hi ch i t w ou ld m ake a di ffer ence. Gu yto n’s appli cabl e gui del i ne r ange w as est abl i shed on the b asi s o fhi s c ar eer - offender sta tus be f or e he re cei ved12 N o. 09

- 3866

a su bs ta nt i ala ss i st an ce d epar tu r e. Thu s, Am en dm en t 7 0 6 , w h i c h l e ftth e c a r e e ro ffe n d e rg u i d e l i n e u n c h a ng e d, di d no t affec t hi s appl i cabl e g ui del ine r an g e, a nd he di d not qual i fy fora sentence r educti on under s e c tion 3582 (c)( 2). Th e j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED .

2- 22- 11