NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 10- 1141

______________ UN I TED STATES v. E L DR I DGE CL AR K, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 99- C R - 00274) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y15, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N , and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t26, 2010)

OP I NI ON G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udge E l dr i dge C l ark appea l s fr om the j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora r educt i on of s ent ence , pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . I n deny i ng C l ark’ s § 3582( c) ( 2) s ent ence r educt i on2

m ot i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thati tl acke d author i tyt o r educe C l ark’ s s ent ence u n d e rUn i t e d S t a t e s v . M a t e o , 5 6 0 F . 3 d 1 5 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . BA CKGROUND W e w ri te s o le ly f

o r t h e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rt ie s a n d re c o u n t o n ly th e e s s e n tia l f a c ts . O n D ece m ber30, 1999, C l ark pl ed gui l tyt o C ountI of the i ndi ctm ent , w hi ch cha r ged h im w ith d is tr ib u tin g c ra c k c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). Pr i ort o C l ark’ s s ent enci ng, the Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eportthatcal cul at ed C l ark’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel s underboth the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual ( “U . S. S. G . ” or“G ui del i nes ”) pr ovi s i ons forcar eer offe nder s ( “C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes ”) , pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, and underthe c ra c k c o c a in e G u id e lin e s (th e “ C ra c k C o c a in e G u id e lin e s” ), p u rsu a n t to th e d ru g q u a n tity t abl e i n U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) . U nderthe C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes , C l ark’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel w as 31. U nderthe C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes , hi s t ot al offe ns e l evel w as 33. T h e p a rties d isa g re e d a s to c e rta in se n ten c e e n h a n c e m e n ts th a t w e re p o ten tially ap p li ca b le t o the C rac k C o ca ine G u idelines ca lculati o n . A t sen tenc ing , the D istri ct C o u rt not ed thatthe part i es ’ fac tual di s agr eement s as t o the enha ncement s w er e “moot . ” B as ed on a r evi ew of C l ark’ s s ent enci ng tr ans cr i pt , i tappea r s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes beca us e, had the D i s tr i ctC our trul ed i n C l ark’ s favoron the di s put ed enha ncement s pert i nentt o the C r ack Cocai ne G ui del i nes , the C ar eerO ffe nderU . S . S . G § 4 B 1. 1 instruct s that a di stri ctcou rtapp l ythe career offen der offen se 1 lev e l, i n ste a d o f

th e d ru g o f

f e n se c a lcu latio n , if th e c a re e r o f f e n d e r o f f e n se lev e l re su lts in a gr eat eroffe ns e l evel . N ei therpartycont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as w i thout authori tyt o ap plythe career offen der offen se l evel al tho ug h itres ult ed in a l ow er offense lev e l. 3 G ui del i nes w oul d have r es ul t ed i n t he gr eat ert ot al offe ns e l evel . C l ark r ai s ed no 1 obj ect i on t o hi s car eeroffe nders t atus . I n fac t , i n hi s pr es ent enci ng s ubm i s s i on t o the D i s tr i ctC our t , he i ndi cat ed hi s bel i ef thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d appl ythe C ar eer O ffen der G uidel i nes. D uri ng sent encing, C l ark’ s coun sel urged thatthe tot al off ense le v e l s h o u ld b e 3 1 b e c a u s e C la rk w a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r. T he D i s tr i ctC our tcal cul at ed C l ark’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel t o be 31 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryt o be V I , w hi ch pr oduced a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 188 t o 235 m onths . O n M ay15, 2000, the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d C l ark t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent i n the m i dd l e of the t hen -m and at oryG uidel i nes range— 20 0 m on ths. O n M ar ch 7, 2008, C l ark fi l ed a pr o s e mot i on t o r educe hi s s ent ence under § 3582( c) ( 2) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tappoi nt ed couns el , w ho s ubm i t t ed a s uppl ement al br i ef on C l ark’ s behal f. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed C l ark’ s § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on. O n the O r der R egar di ng M ot i on forSent ence R educt i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tfi l l ed i n the “or i gi nal ” and the “a m ended” G ui del i nes r ange w i th the i dent i cal r ange appl i ed i n the M ay15, 2000 s ent enci ng— 188 t o 235 m onths . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , ci t i ng t o ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed S tate s v . M a teo , 5 6 0 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 n .1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), n o ted th a t itlac k e d a u th o rityto4

r educe C l ark’ s s ent ence . C lar k f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. I I . J URI S DI CTI ON a n d S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n o v e r th e u n d e rly in g c rim in a l ca se , p u rsu a n t to 18 U . S. C . § 3231. O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e de novo r evi ew of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes , M at eo, 560 F. 3d at154, and a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of i t s ow n author i tyt o r educe a s ent ence , U ni t ed St at es v. S a n c h e z , 5 6 2 F .3 d 2 7 5 , 2 7 7 -7 8 & n .4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), c e rt . d e n ie d , 1 3 0 S .C t. 1 0 5 3 (2 0 1 0 ). W e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s u lti m a te d e c isio n to g ra n t o r d e n ya d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e f

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . M a t e o , 5 6 0 F . 3 d a t1 5 4 ; s e e a l s o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) ( 2) ( s t at i ng thata di s tr i ctcourt , “i n the ca s e of a defe ndantw ho has been s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas been s ubs equent l yl ow er ed, ” mayr educe the def endant ’ s s ent ence “af

t ercons i der i ng” s ect i on 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d p o li cystat em en ts i ssu ed b ythe S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n ). III . A N A L Y S IS I n C l ark’ s appel l at e br i ef, he does nots peci fi cal l yas s ertthathi s s ent ence w as

“ b a s e d o n ” th e Gu i d e l i n e s s e c t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o c r a c k c o c a i n e o f f e n s e s . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) ( 2) ( perm i t t i ng court s t o r educe a def endant ’ s s ent ence i f the “t erm of i m pr i s onm ent[w as ] bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed by the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on”) ; s ee U . S. S. G . app. C . , amend. 706 ( 2007) , m ade r etr oact i ve byamend. 713 ( 2008) ( amendi ng the drug quant i tyt abl e forU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1)5

( her ei naft er“A m endment706”) . C l ark, neverthel es s , appea r s t o r ei t er at e hi s cont ent i on thathi s s ent ence s houl d be r educe d as a r es ul tof the r etr oact i ve tw o- l evel r educt i on of the bas e off ens e l evel cal cul at i on forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es , avai l abl e underA m endment 706. ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 13) ( “[T] hi s C our ts houl d . . . r emand w i th di r ect i ons t o gr antt he m o ti o n — p erm itti n g C lark to re ce ive th e b en ef ito f th e tw o -l ev el red u cti o n . . . . ”). C lar k a lso p re se rv e s h is a rg u m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h im a f u ll r es ent enci ng, and i m pr oper l ytr eat ed the G ui del i nes as m andat ory . See U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 245 ( 2005) ( exci s i ng the pr ovi s i on, 18 U . S. C § 3553( b) ( 1) , that m ade the G ui del i nes m andat ory ) . Speci fi cal l y , C l ark m ai nt ai ns that , underB ooker , the D istric t C o u rt m u st, a t a m in im u m , co n sid e r w h e th e r th e se n ten c in g f a c to rs e n u m e ra ted in 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) w arr anta r educt i on of C l ark’ s s ent ence . See i d. at245 ( det erm i ni ng th a t co u rts m a y“ tailo r th e se n ten c e ” in c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e se n ten c in g f

a c to rs liste d in § 3 5 5 3 (a)). It is u n c lea r f

ro m C lar k ’s s u b m iss io n w h e th e r C lar k c o n ten d s th a t B o o k e r p e rm its the D i s tr i ctC our tt o fur therr educe hi s s ent ence , i f he i s el i gi bl e fora § 3582( c) ( 2) se n ten c e re d u c tio n , o r to in d e p e n d e n tlyre d u c e h is s e n ten c e , reg a rd les s o f h is e lig ib ili ty u n d er § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). A s the G o v ern m en t correc tl yn o tes, w e c an n o t add ress C lark’s ap p ea l w ith o u t assessin g , in the firstinstan ce , w h ethe r C lark is st atuto ri lyeli g ible fo r a s ent ence r educt i on, pur s uantt o hi s § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on. A di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o corr ectorm odi fya def endant ’ s s ent ence i s l i m i t ed

### Thi s Court ha s i de nt i fi e d two r e qui r e m e nt s for a§ 3582( c ) ( 2) s e nt e nc e r e duc t i on: 2 

### “( 1) the defendant’s initi alse ntencem ust have bee n ‘base d o n a se ntencing rang e that has s ub se qu ently

been lowered by

the Sente ncing C ommis si on ,’ and (2) the s ente nce r e duc t i on m

us t be ‘ c ons i s t e nt

wi th a ppl i c abl e pol i c y

s t at e m e nt s i s s ue d by

the Se nt e nc i ng Co mmis si on .’ ” Unite d S tate s v. Fle ming, -- - F.3d --- , 201 0 WL 2 90 27 25 , at *3 (3dCir. Ju ly 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 ) (qu o tin g § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 )). W e n ee d n o t discu ss the sec o n d statu tory r equi r ementbeca us e C l ark i s unabl e t o s at i s fythe fi r s ts t atut oryr equi r ement . See U ni t ed St at es v. D oe, 564 F. 3d 305, 312- 14 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( not i ng thats t atut orydi r ect i ves pert ai ni ng t o s ent enci ng ar e not“opt i onal ” eve n though “[t ] he G ui del i nes ar e no l onger m an d atory ”). 6 t o th o s e s p e c i f

i c c i r c u m s t a n c e s e n u m e r a t e d b y C o n g r e s s i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 . G e n e r a l l y, “a j udgm entof convi ct i on thati ncl udes [a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ent ] cons t i tut es a fi nal j udgm ent . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3582. C ongr es s pr ovi des a l i m i t ed exc ept i on t o thi s rul e of f in a lity , in § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ), b yp e rm itt in g a d istric t co u rt to re d u c e a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e if the s ent ence w as “bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed byt he S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n .” 2 I n exami ni ng the i s s ue of s t atut oryel i gi bi l i tyfors ent ence r educt i on, w e r el yon ourdeci s i on i n M at eo. I n t hatcas e, w e obs erved that“[t ] o be ent i t l ed t o a r educt i on of s ent ence , a def

endant ’ s s ent enci ng r ange musthave be en l ow er ed byr eca l cul at i on bas ed on the amended bas e off ens e l evel . ” 560 F. 3d at154 ( emphasi s del et ed) . T he cr ack coca i ne amendm ent , A m endment706, onl yappl i es t o s ent ence s bas ed on the drug q u a n tity ta b le a n d d o e s n o t a p p ly to s e n te n c e s b a s e d o n th e C a re e r O f f e n d e r G u id e lin e s . I d. at155 ( “A m endment706 onl yaff ect s cal cul at i on under§ 2D 1. 1( c) , and the l ow er i ng of the bas e off

ens e l evel under§ 2D 1. 1( c) has no eff ecton the appl i cat i on of the ca r eer7

o f f e n d e r l e v e l r e q u ir e d b y§ 4 B 1 .1 .” ). B eca us e the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on has notl ow er ed the s ent enci ng r ange a p p lica b le to c a re e r o f

f e n d e rs u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 (b ), id ., th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly d e te rm in e d th a t a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n in C la rk ’s te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t w a s u n w a rr a n te d . R atherthan foc us i ng on hi s s t atut oryel i gi bi l i tyfora s ent ence r educt i on under § 3582( c) ( 2) , C l ark cont ends that“the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng thatno fur thers ent ence r educt i on w as w arr ant ed forC l ark deni ed hi m a ful l r es ent enci ng underU ni t ed St at es v. B o o k er, an d erro n eo u slytr ea ted th e S en tenc ing G u idelines as m an d atory . ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. 2 . ) C l ark, how ever , conce des thatthi s C our thas r ej ect ed thi s ar gum enti n U ni t ed St at es v. D i l l on ( D i l l on I ) , 572 F. 3d 146 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . I n D i l l on I , w e “c oncl ude[d] t hat B o o k er d o es n o t app lyto [ the] size o f a sen tenc e re d u cti o n that m ayb e g ran ted u n d er § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ).” 5 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 . W e d e ter m in e d th a t th e lo w e r c o u rt p ro p e rlyru led th a t it la c k e d a u th o ri ty to f

u rt h e r r e d u c e th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s a m e n d e d G u id e lin e s ra n g e . Id . Si nce the fi l i ng of C l ark’ s appea l , the Supr eme C our taff i r m ed D i l l on I i n D i l l on v. Un i t e d S t a t e s ( Di l l o n I I ) , - - - U. S . - - - , 1 3 0 S . Ct . 2 6 8 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) . I n Di l l o n I I , th e S u p r e me C o u rtrea so n ed that, “[ b ]yit s term s, § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) d o es n o t auth o ri ze a se n tenc ing o r a r es ent enci ng pr ocee di ng. I ns t ead i tpr ovi des forthe modi f[i cat i on of] a t erm of im p riso n m e n t b yg iv in g c o u rts th e p o w e r to re d u c e a n o th e rw ise f in a l se n ten c e in ci r cumst ance s s peci fi ed bythe C om m i s s i on. ” 130 S. C t . at2690 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal8

and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he C our temphasi zed that“the pr ovi s i on appl i es onl yt o a l i m i t ed cl as s of pr i s oner s — namel y , thos e w hos e s ent ence w as bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange s ubs equent l yl ow er ed bythe C om m i s s i on. ” I d. T he D i l l on pr ece dent s addr es s the degr ee of r educt i on avai l abl e t o defe ndant s w ho a re sta tu to rilye lig ib le f o r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n . B e c a u se C lar k c a n n o t es tab lish th a t h e is s t atut or i l yel i gi bl e foranys ent ence r educt i on under§ 3582( c) ( 2) , C l ark’ s di s cus s i on of a “furtherr educt i on” i s t o no avai l , and D i l l on I and D i l l on I I ar e i nappos i t e. T hus , the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyd eterm ined that B o o k er d id n o t pro v ide th e D istri ct C o u rt a u th o rityto re d u c e C lar k ’s s e n ten c e a t all. I I I . CO NC L US I ON B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.