UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JIM M Y LEE THOR

NTON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-10080 D.C . No. 4:09-c r-00745-DLJ-1 Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Oakla nd
ORDER

B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FISHER

and B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. The disposition file d on De c e m be r 27, 2016 is W

ITHDR AW N a nd re pla c e d by the supe rse ding disposition file d c onc urre ntly with this order. W ith tha t substitution, the

pa ne l ha s vote d

to de ny the pe tition for re he aring. C hie f Judge Thom a s a

nd JudgeB e rz on vote to de ny the pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc , a nd JudgeFishe r so re c om m e nds. The full c ourt wa s a dvise d of the pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc an d no judge ha s re que ste d a

vote on whe the r to re he ar the m atte r e n ba nc . Fe d. R . App. P. 35. Appe l le e ’ s pe tition for pa ne l re he aring a

nd pe tition for re h e a

ring e n ba nc are DENIED. 

# F IL ED J UN 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSN O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JIM M Y LEE THOR

N TON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-10080 D.C . No. 4:09-c r-00745 DLJ-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D. Lowe l l Je nse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

13, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FISHER

and B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. The Unite d State s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r re duc ing the prison
se nte nc e of de fe n d ant-a

ppe lle e Jim

m y Le e Thornton pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2). W e orde re d supple m e nta l brie fing re ga rding whe the r our e n

ba nc 

# F IL ED J UN 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.opinion in Unite d State s v . Dav is , 825 F.3d 1014 (9th C i r. 2016), a ffe c t e d Thornton’ s c a se . W e c onc lude tha t Thornton is ine ligiblefor a se nte n c e re duc tion
e ve n in light of Dav is , a

nd so re ve rse . A de fe nda

nt is ge ne ra lly e ligiblefor a se nte nc e re duc tion whe n he or she is
se nte nc e d “ ba se d

on a se nte nc ing ra

nge [unde r the Unite d State s Se nte n c i ng Guide line s] tha

t ha s subse que ntly

be e n lowe re d by

the Se nte n c ing C om

m i ssion.” 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2). The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t Thornton fa c e d

a m andatory
m inim um se nte nc e of 60 m onths’ im prisonm e nt, tha

t the c a l c ulate d Guide line s range in Thornton’ s c a s e wa s initially 46 to 57 months, a

n d tha t subse que nt
am e ndm e nts to theGuide line s would ha ve lowe re d the c a lc u late d range to 30-37
m onths. Thepa

rtie s disputeonly

whe the r Thornton’ s se nte n c e wa s a c tua lly “ ba se d on” the c a lc ulate d ran ge . Dav is a dopte d the re a soning of Justic e Ke nne dy ’ s plura l ity opinion in Fre e man v . Unite d State

s , 564 U.S. 522, 534 (2011), c onc luding tha t e ve n whe n a se nte nc e is de te rm ine d by a R ule 11(c )(1)(C ) a g re e m e nt, tha t se nte nc e is “ l ike ly ” ba se d on the Guide line s. Dav is he ld tha t “ a de fe nda nt should be

e ligiblefor a
se nte nc e re duc t i on whe n one fa c tor in a de fe nda nt’ s se nte nc e wa s a

‘ sinc e -re je c te d Guide line .’ ” 825 F.3d a

t 1027 (e m

pha s is a dde d) (quoting Fre e man , 564 U.S. a t 530). 2Thornton’ s ple a a gre e m e nt e xpre ssly

sta t e d tha t his se nte nc e “ s hould be
c a lc ulat e d pursua

nt to the Se nte nc ing Guide line s,” and re c ogniz e d tha t a “ se nte nc e of im prisonm e nt within the

Guide line s ra

nge se t forth [in the a gre e m e nt] ” wa s re a s ona ble . W e the re fore c onc lude tha t the c a lc ulate d Guide l ine s ra nge wa s a fa c t or in Thornton’ s se nte nc e . Thornton is nev e rthe le ss ine ligiblefor a se nte nc e re duc tion be c a

use the
m andatory

m inim um se nte nc e a

pplic a ble to him

displa c e d the c a lc ulate d Guide line s ra

nge . Although the

gove rnm e nt c o nc e de s tha t it did not ra

ise this
argum e nt be fore the distric t c ourt, we have he ld tha t e ligibility

for a se nte nc ing
re duc t ion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) is a jurisdic t iona l que stion. Unite d State s
v . Spe ars , 824 F.3d 908, 916 (9th C ir. 2016). W e are the re fore re quire d to c onside r the q ue stion re ga

rdle ss of whe the r the pa

rtie s ra i se d it be l ow. The Guide line s sta

te tha t “ [w] he re a

sta tutorily re quire d m inim

um se nte nc e is gre ate r tha

n the m a xim

um of the a pplic a ble guide l ine range , the sta tutorily
re quire d m inim

um se nte n c e shall be

the guide line se nte nc e .” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b) (e m pha sis a dde d ). The polic y sta te m e nt a pplic a b le at the tim e of Thornton’ s 2010
se nte nc ing provide s tha

t a re duc tion is not a

ppropria te whe n a m andatory
m inim um displa c e s a

Guide line s ra

nge . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) (re quiring tha t
any re duc tion be “ c onsiste nt with a pplic a ble polic y sta te m e nts issue d by the 3Se nte n c i ng C om m ission.” ). The re le va

nt polic y sta te m e nt instruc te d tha

t “ a re duc t ion in thede fe nda

nt’ s te rm of im prisonm e nt is not a

uthoriz e d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) a

nd is not c onsiste nt with this polic y sta te m e nt if . . . a

n am e ndm e nt . . . doe s not ha ve the e ffe c t

of lowe ring thede fe nda

nt’ s a pplic a ble guide l ine range be c a

use of the ope ration of a

n othe r guide line or sta

tutory provision ( e .g., a statutory

mandatory

minimum te rm of imprisonme nt ).” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.10(a ) c m

t. n.1 (e m pha sis a dde d). He re , a lthough Thornton’ s Guide l ine s ra nge would norm a lly

have be e n 46 to 57 mo nths, his 60-m onth m andatory

m inim um se nte nc e displa c e d tha

t range . Thornton is thus ine ligiblefor a se nte nc e re d

uc tion. The c irc uits tha

t ha v e a ddre sse d this que stion ha v e like wise c onc lude d tha t whe re a m andatory

m inim um is highe r tha

n a c a lc ulate d

Guide line s range , a

nd is binding on the distric t c ourt, the m andatory m inim um be c om e s the Guide line s se nte nc e , a

nd the de fe nda

nt is ine ligiblefor § 3582(c ) re lie f. The Ninth C irc uit
a lso ha s so he ld, a lbe it in c a se s de c ide d be fore Fre e man and Dav is. Se e Unite d State s v . J ac k son , 577 F.3d 1032, 1035–36 (9th C ir. 2009) a nd Unite d State

s v . Mullanix , 99 F.3d 323, 324 (9th C ir. 1996); se e also Unite d State s v . J oine r , 727 F.3d 601, 606–08 (6th C ir. 2013); Unite d State s v . Robinson, 697 F.3d 443, 444 (7th C ir. 2012); Unite d State s v . Mc C lain , 691 F.3d 774, 777–80 (6th C ir. 2012); Unite d State s v . Glov e r

, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206–07 (11th C i r. 2012); Unite d State s v . 4W

illiams , 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d C ir. 2009). W e hold tha

t Thornton wa s ine ligiblefor a se nte nc e re duc tion be c a

use of the
a pplic a bility of a sta tutory m inim

um in e xc e ss of his c a lc ulate d Guide line s ra nge . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting Thornton’ s m o tion to re duc e his
se nte nc e is RE V E RSE D , a nd the re duc e d se nte nc e is VACAT E D . W e re m and to the d istric t c o urt; on re m an d , the distric t c ourt is to re insta t e the origina l se nte nc e of 96 m onths’ im

prisonm e nt.

5