2009 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 4-2-2009 

# U SA v . Lloyd T uck e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3121

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Llo yd T ucke r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1592. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1592H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an, Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he * D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 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. 08- 3121

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LL OYD TUCKER , A ppel l ant

__________ O n 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 93- 117) (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 Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 6, 2009 B efore: B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es, and A C K E R M A N , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. *

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 2, 2009)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________In calculating a base of fenselevel of 26, theDistrict Court rejec ted the sug g estion of the 1 Probation Depa

rtment that a ba se off

ense le vel of 34 beapplied. Probation re commended a drug quantity of betwe en 150 and 500 grams, but the District Court conc luded that the drugweight wa s b e tw e e n 5 and

50 gra ms. 2 A C K E R M A N , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. D e f e n d a n t L lo y d T u c k e r a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is p ro se m o tio n to m odi fyhi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . I n O ct ober1993, a j ur yfound T uckergui l t yof cons pi r acyw i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d 8 4 6 , as w e ll as f a lse lyre p re se n tin g th a t a c e rta in S o c ial S e c u rity num berw as hi s ow n, i n vi ol at i on of 42 U . S. C . § 408( a) ( 7) ( B ) . A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ct C our ti ni t i al l ycal cul at ed a ba s e off ens e l evel of 26 underU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) , bas ed on t he court ’ s drug quant i t yfi ndi ng. A ddi ng i n ot heroffe ns e l evel cal cul at i ons , T ucker 1 or di nar i l yw oul d have f ace d a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 31. H ow ever , T uckerhad tw o pr i or fel onydrug- t r aff

i cki ng convi ct i ons , t hus m aki ng hi m a ca r eeroffe nderforpurpos es of U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1. T ucker ’ s car eeroffe nders t atus r equi r ed thathi s t ot al offe ns e l evel be 3 4 , n o t wi t h s t a n d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f § 2 D1 . 1 ( c ) . Wi t h a Cr i mi n a l Hi s t o r yc a t e g o r yo f VI as m andat ed byt he ca r eeroffe nderpr ovi s i on, T uckerfac ed a G ui del i nes r ange of 262- 327 m ont hs . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d hi m t o 262 m ont hs on t he drug char ge and 60 m o n t h s o n t h e f

a l s e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y n u m b e rc h a r g e , t o ru n c o n c u r r e n t l y. A ft ert he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on r etr oact i vel yamended t he cr ack c ocai ne gui del i nes , l ow er i ng t he bas e off ens e l evel s forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es under§2D 1. 1( c) b ytw o le v e ls , T u c k e r f ile d a m o tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) t o re d u c e h is s e n te n c e .3

T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Tucker ’ s m ot i on beca us e the cr ack c ocai ne amendm ent s do not red u ce the f

inal sen tenc ing ran g e a p p li ca b le t o T u ck er. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a rTu c k e r ’ s mo t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overT ucker ’ s appea l under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew d e n o v o a d istri ct co u rt ’s i n terpretati o n o f th e G u idelines , an d w e re v iew a c o u rt ’s ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of a de fenda nt ’ s m ot i on t o r educe s ent ence under§ 3582( c) ( 2) for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , ___ F. 3d ___, 2009 W L 750411, at*2 ( 3d C ir . M ar. 24 , 2 0 0 9 ). T hi s C our tr ece nt l yhel d i n Mat eo t hatt he cr ack c ocai ne amendm ent s pr ovi de no ben efi tt o d efen dan t s sent enced as car eer offen ders pursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1 b ecause t he amendm ent s do notl ow ert he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange f orcar eer o f f e n d e rs . I d. , __ _ F . 3d at__ _, 20 09 W L 75 04 11 , at*3 . T uck er w as sent enced as a c a re e r o f f e n d e r, an d th e c ra c k c o c a in e a m e n d m e n ts th e re f o re d o n o t af

f e c t h is a p p lica b le s ent enci ng r ange. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed i n M at eo , T u c k e r m a yn o t se e k a re d u c tio n in h is sen tenc e p u rsua n t t o § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2), an d the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing T u ck er’s m ot i on. T ucker ’ s addi t i onal gr ounds forappea l l ack mer i t . T her efor e, w e w i l l aff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.