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 3-5-2010 

# U SA v . Royce B rown, S 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 . 09-2600

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 anova . 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 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 ll anova 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ro yc e B r own, S r

. " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1779. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1779NOT 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- 2600

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO YC E BR OWN, 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

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 1: 95- cr - 00069- 0001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 3, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 5, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antR oy ce Brow n s eeks r evi ew of a M ay8, 2009, or derbythe U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e D istric t o f

D e law a re d e n y in g B ro w n ’s m o tio n to re d u c e h is sen tenc e p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.“A d ef en d an t i s a c are er o ff

en d er if (1 ) th e d ef

en d an t w as a t l ea st ei g h teen y ea rs 1 ol d atthe t i m e the def

endantcomm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e of c onvi ct i on; ( 2) the i ns t ant offe ns e of c onvi ct i on i s a fe l onythati s ei thera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e; and ( 3) the def endanthas atl eas ttw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons of ei ther a c ri m e o f v iolen ce o r a c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce o ff en se.” U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 (a). I n N ovember2007, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on i s s ued A m endment706, w hi ch 2 gener al l yr educe d t he bas e off ens e l evel forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es under§ 2D 1. 1( c) by tw o l evel s . See U . S. S. G . A pp. C , A m end. 706 ( N ov. 1, 2007) . T he C om m i s s i on m ade the amendm entr etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e. See U . S. S. G . A pp. C , A m end. 713 ( Supp. M ay1 , 2 0 0 8 ). 2 I . B ackgr ound In Ju n e 1 9 9 6 , a ju ryf

o u n d B ro w n g u iltyo f

p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m o re th a n 5 0 g ra m s o f

c ra c k c o c a in e a n d u n la w f u l p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm b ya f

e lo n . See 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ; 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . I n N ovember1997, the D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d ju d g m e n t an d se n ten c e d B ro w n a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r p u rsu a n t to U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, t o a t ot al t erm of 360 m onths of i m pr i s onm entand fi ve y ear s of 1 s upervi s ed r el eas e. B r ow n appea l ed. W e af fi r m ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . See U n it ed S tat es v . B row n , C . A . N o s. 9 6 -74 4 9 , 9 7 -76 0 2 (co n so li d ated ). O n M a rc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , B ro w n f iled a p ro se m o tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) in the D i s tr i ctC our t , s eeki ng t o r educe hi s s ent ence bytw o l evel s underSent enci ng G u id e lin e A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 . B ro w n , lik e s im ila r § 3 5 8 2 m o v a n ts , w a s a p p o in te d c o u n s e l. 2 B r ow n’ s couns el pr om pt l ym oved t o w i thdr aw , ar gui ng that , beca us e B r ow n w as s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe nder , hi s § 3582 cl ai m l acke d m er i tunderU ni t ed St at es v. M a teo , 5 6 0 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n toI tdoes notappea rthatthe D i s tr i ctC our trul ed upon the mot i on. 3 3 w ith d ra w . B ro w n m o v e d f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

su b stitu te c o u n se l, bu t th e D istric t C o u rt d id notgr antthe mot i on. O n M ay8, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed B r ow n’ s § 3582 3 m ot i on. P ro c e e d in g p ro se , B ro w n tim e lyf iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. II. A n a ly sis A. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew the dec i s i on t o denythe mot i on t o r educe the s ent ence under§ 3582( c) ( 2) forabus e of di s cr et i on. See M at eo, 560 F. 3d at154. U nder§ 3582, “i n t he 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 s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. . . . , ” a D i s tr i ctC our tm ayr educe a def endant ’ s s ent ence , “af

t er c o n sid e rin g th e f

a c to rs s e t f

o rth in se c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ) to th e e x ten t th a t th e ya re a p p lica b le, if s uch a r educt i on i s cons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . I n hi s § 3582 m ot i on, B r ow n ar gued that , by enac t i ng A m endment706, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on l ow er ed hi s s ent enci ng r ange. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed B r ow n’ s m ot i on, s t at i ng thati t“cons i der ed al l of the 3553( a) fac t or s and [f

ound] the s ent ence i m pos ed on N ovember6, 1997, t o be the4

appr opr i at e s ent ence . ” Expre s s l ycons i der i ng ourdeci s i on M at eo, 560 F. 3d at155- 56, t he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed anys ent ence r educt i on underA m endment706. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n . W h e n B ro w n w a s o rig in a lly s e n t e n c e d , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tc l a s s i f i e d Br o wn a s a c a r e e ro f f e n d e rp u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 4B 1. 1. A m endment706 does notaff ectthe s ent enci ng r ange of an i ndi vi dual cl as s i fi ed as a ca r eeroffe nderunderthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . See M at eo, 560 F. 3d at155 (“A m end m ent 706 o nlyaffects cal culat i on un der § 2D 1. 1(c) , and the low eri ng of the base offe ns e l evel under§ 2D 1. 1( c) has no eff ecton the appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nder o ff en se lev el req u ir ed b y§ 4 B 1 . 1 . ”). B ec au se A m en d m en t 70 6 d o es n o t l o w er B row n ’s s ent enci ng r ange, hi s m ot i on s eeki ng a r educt i on i n hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o § 3582( c) ( 2) l acks m er i t . See i d. B. B r ow n r es ponds thathe i s “ac tual l yi nnocentof the ca r eercr i m i nal enhanc ement i m pos ed upon hi m . ” H e cl ai m s thathe s houl d neverhas been c l as s i fi ed as a ca r eer o f f e n d e ri n th e f

i r s ti n s t a n c e , s o h e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s e n t e n c e d u n d e rU. S . S . G.B r ow n ar gues thathi s thi r d degr ee a r s on convi ct i on has a mens r ea of 4 “re ck lessn ess” an d there fo re sh o u ld n o t qu ali fyas a “c ri m e o f v iolen ce . ” H o w ev er, B r ow n does notaddr es s the def i ni t i on of “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” s etfor th i n the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , w hi ch expr es s l yi ncl udes ar s on. U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) ( “The t erm ‘ cr i m e of v iolen ce ’ m ea n s an yo ff en se u n d er f

ed era l or stat e law , p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a t erm exce edi ng one y ear , that. . . i s . . . ar s on . . . orotherw i s e i nvol ves conductthat pr es ent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj uryt o another . ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Par s on, 955 F. 3d 858, 866 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( concl udi ng thatthe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on h a s th e p o w e r to e x p a n d th e c a teg o ryo f “ c a re e r o f

f e n d e rs” f ro m th e d e f

in iti o n se t f

o rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 ). 5 § 2D 1. 1( c) i ns t ead of

§ 4B 1. 1. A ccor di ngl y , he s eeks t o be r e- s ent ence d as a non- car eer

4 offe nder , s o thatA m endment706 m ayappl yt o r educe hi s s ent ence . I n M at eo, how ever , w e expr es s l yhel d that , i n the cont extof a § 3582 mot i on pr emi s ed upon A m endment706, a D i s tr i ctC our tl acks author i tyt o r econs i dera pr i or det erm i nat i on t o appl ythe ca r eeroffe ndergui del i nes . M at eo, 560 F. 3d at156. T he Di s tr i c tCo u r tc o r r e c t l ya p p l i e d M a t e o i n d e n y i n g Br o wn ’ s c a r e e ro f f e n d e rc l a i m. C. A p p a re n tlyre c o g n izin g th a t M a teo f o re c lo se s h is e f

f o rts u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 to a ttac k h is i n i t i a l c l a s s i f

i c a t i o n a s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e r , Br o wn n o w a t t e mp t s t o p r o c e e d u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3742( a) ( 2) , w hi ch perm i t s a def endantt o appea l an otherw i s e- fi nal s ent ence i f i tw as “im p o sed as a resu lto f a n inco rrect ap p li ca ti o n o f th e se n tenc ing g u idelines . ” H o w ev er, B r ow n has al r eadyt aken a di r ectappea l of hi s convi ct i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, C . A . N os . 96- 7449, 97- 7602. M or eover , an att empt t o appea l m or e than a de cade aft er sen tenc ing is cl ea rl yu n ti m ely . S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (b)(1 )(A )(i ).A § 2 2 4 4 a p p lica n t m u st m a k e a p rim a f a c ie s h o w in g th a t an yc laim h e w ish e s to 5 r ai s e ei therr el i es upon a new , r etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw orupon n ew lyd isco v ere d ev iden ce o f a ctua l i n n o ce n ce . S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 ); In re O l opade, 403 F. 3d 159, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e not e thatthe documentB r ow n has appende d t o hi s openi ng br i ef doe s notappea rt o m eetthe s t andar ds for§ 2244 r el i ef. 6 L ooki ng t o t he s ubs t ance of hi s cl ai m , B r ow n i s att empt i ng t o col l at er al l yatt ack h is s e n te n c e . S u c h a c la im s h o u ld b e p u rs u e d a s a m o tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . B ro w n a lre a d yf

iled o n e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n in Ju n e 2 0 0 0 , w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied in February2003. A ccor di ngl y , B r ow n m us ts eek ourauthor i zat i on befor e fi l i ng a s econd o rs u c c e s s i v e § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n . 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 4 . I n d e e d , i n h i s o p e n i n g b r i e f , Br o wn m akes an al t ernat i ve r eques tforr el i ef, s eeki ng l eave t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m o tio n . A lth o u g h o n e e x h ib it t o h is b rie f p u rp o rts to b e a § 2 2 4 4 a p p lica tio n , B ro w n d id no tproperl yfi l e a § 2 24 4 ap pli cat i on w i th the r equ i red supp ort i ng do cum ents , as he m ust d o i n o r d e rt o c o mp l ywi th th e ru l e s o f th i s Co u r t . S e e 3 d Ci r . L . A. R. 2 2 . 5 . I f Br o wn 5 w ish e s to p u rsu e re lief

p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 in th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, h e m u st f

ile a s epar at e appl i cat i on w i th t he C l erk of the C our tand i ncl ude al l the document s r equi r ed by3d C i r . L . A . R . 22. 5. D. B r ow n r ai s es var i ous cont ent i ons thatthe G overnm entand hi s appoi nt ed couns el “ent er ed i nt o s om e off

- the- r ecor d agr eement ” thatr es ul t ed i n the di s m i s s al of hi s § 3582 m ot i on. See O peni ng B r i ef a t2( a) - ( b) . W e do notcr edi tthes e vague and uns uppor t ed al l egat i ons . T o t he ext entB r ow n i s ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on7

byperm i t t i ng couns el t o w i thdr aw orbydecl i ni ng t o appoi nts ubs t i tut e couns el , w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on. I I I . C oncl us i on F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.