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
4-30-2009 

# U SA v . J ohn D o e P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3968

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_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 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 2009 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 . J o hn D oe " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1417. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1417P 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- 3968 N o. 08- 4028

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OH N D OE, A ppel l anti n 08- 3968

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AN E DO E, A ppel l anti n 08- 4028

____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N os . 05- cr - 00547- 002; 05- cr - 00547- 003)2 D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B
. B r ody

____________ A r gued J anuary7, 2009

____________ B efor e: FU E N T E S, FI SH E R and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed : A p ri l 30 , 2 0 0 9 )

M aur een K earneyR ow l ey D a v id L . M c C o lg in Sar ah S. G annett( A r gued) Feder al C om m uni tyD efe nderO ffi ce F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia Sui t e 540 W es t- C ur t i s C ent er 601 W al nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts L a u rie M a g id R obertA
. Z auzmer B ernadett e A
. M cK eon ( A r gued) Jo sep h W h it eh ea d , Jr. O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney Sui t e 1250 615 C hes nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el forA ppel l eeT he A ppel l ant s ’ unoppos ed mot i on t o pr ocee d under 1 p s e u d o n ym w a s g ra n te d o n J a n u a ry 7 , 2 0 0 9
. 3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. T he A ppel l ant s , J ohn and J ane D oe, appea l the 1 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s d e n ia l o f th e ir1 8 U .S .C . § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i ons forr educt i on of s ent ence . O n February1, 2007, both A ppel l ant s pl ed gui l tyt o cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e, an d d istri b u ti o n o f, crac k co ca ine. T h e A p p ell an ts w ere gr ant ed s i gni fi cants ubs t ant i al

- as s i s t ance departur es bel ow both t hei rs t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um s and bel ow thei rpr eamendm entG ui del i ne r anges . A ft erthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pas s ed A m endment706, w hi ch l ow ered the U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 D 1. 1 b ase offen se l evels for m ost q u a n tit ies o f

c ra c k c o c a in e b ytw o lev e ls, th e A p p e llan ts m o v e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to f u rt h e r r e d u c e th e irs e n te n c e s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed thei rm ot i ons . O n appea l , the A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g th e ir m ot i ons beca us e: 1) theyw er e s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entthatw as , atl eas ti n part , bas ed on a s ent enci ng ra n g e th a t h a s s u b se q u e n tlyb e e n lo w e re d ; 2 ) th e a p p lica b le pol i cys t at ement , found atU
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10, i s i n confl i ct w ith the p lai n text o f § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2); 3) the D istri ct C o u rtT he D i s tr i ctC o u rt had j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 2 U. S
. C. § 3 2 3 1
. Th i s Co u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1291. T hi s C our texer ci s es pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ct court’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a pr ovi s i on of l aw . U ni t ed St at es v. W o o d , 5 2 6 F
. 3 d 8 2 , 8 5 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). 4 m isc o n stru e d U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 ; 4 ) U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 is m er el yadvi s oryaft erB ookerv. W as hi ngt on, 543 U
. S. 220 ( 2005) ; and 5) the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o w ei gh the equi t i es a n d c o n s i d e rth e ru l e o f l e n i tyi n i t s d e c i s i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 2 I. J ohn and J ane D oe ea ch pl ed gui l tyt o one countof cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e cr ack c ocai ne ( 21 U
. S. C
. § 846) and o n e c o u n t o f

d is tr ib u tio n o f

c ra c k c o c a in e (2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 )), a n d e n ter e d in to c o o p e ra tio n p lea a g re e m e n ts w ith the g ov ernm ent. John D oe’s U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 D 1. 1 b ase offen se l evel forthes e convi ct i ons w as 34. H e r ece i ved a tw o- l evel i ncr eas e forhi s r ol e i n the off ens e, and a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al adj us t ed o ff en se lev el of

3 3
. H is cri m inal h ist o ryw as c ateg o ryII. A ccor di ngl y , thi s pr oduced a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 151- 188 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent
. J ohn D oe, how ever , w as al s o s ubj ectt o a s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um s ent ence of l i fe i n pr i s on beca us e of pr i ordrug convi ct i ons . A s the m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence exce eded the G ui del i nes r ange, the mandat orym i ni m um beca m e the G ui del i nes s ent ence ,“ W h e re a sta tu to rilyre q u ire d m in im u m se n ten c e is 3 gr eat er than t he m axi m um of t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra nge, the s t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um sent ence s hal l be the gui del i ne s e n te n c e .” U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .1 (b ). 5 pur s uantt o U
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1. 1. 3 T hi s m andat orym i ni m um G ui del i nes s ent ence w as not appl i ed t o J ohn D oe, how ever , beca us e of s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance he pr ovi ded t o the governm ent
. T he governm ent m o v ed fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture f rom the m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence pur s uantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( e) and fr om the G ui del i nes r ange pur s uantt o U
. S. S. G
. § 5K 1. 1. T he D i s tr i ctC our tul t i m at el ys ent ence d J ohn D oe, on A ugus t16, 2 0 0 7 , to 8 4 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, a s e n ten c e w e ll b e lo w b o th the mandat orym i ni m um G ui del i nes s ent ence and the o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . J ane D oe’ s U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1 bas e off ens e l evel for thes e convi ct i ons w as 34. She r ece i ved a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al adj us t ed o ff en se lev el of

3 1
. H er c ri m inal h ist o ryw as c ateg o ryII. A ccor di ngl y , thi s pr oduced a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 121- 151 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent
. J ane D oe, how ever , w as al s o s ubj ectt o a s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um s ent ence of tw entyy ear s , due t o a pr i ordrug convi ct i on. A s the m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence exce eded the G ui del i nes r ange, the mandat orym i ni m um beca m e the G ui del i nes s ent ence , pur s uantt o U
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1. 1.6 T hi s m andat orym i ni m um G ui del i nes s ent ence w as not appl i ed t o J ane D oe, how ever , beca us e, l i ke J ohn D oe, s he y i el ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o the governm ent
. T he governm entm oved fora dow nw ar d departur e fr om the m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence pur s uantt o § 3553( e) and fr om the G ui del i nes r ange pur s uantt o U
. S. S. G
. § 5K 1. 1. T he D i s tr i ctC our tul t i m at el ys ent ence d J ane D oe, on M ay17, 2 0 0 7 , to 4 1 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, a s e n ten c e w e ll b e lo w b o th the mandat orym i ni m um G ui del i nes s ent ence and the o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . O n N ov em ber 1, 20 07 – sub sequen tt o the A pp el l ants ’ s ent enci ngs – the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pas s ed A m endment706, w hi ch cha nged U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1 by l ow er i ng the bas e off

ens e l evel s form os tquant i t i es of cr ack coca i ne bytw o l evel s . See U
. S. S. G
. Supp. t o A pp. C
. amend. 706. O n D ece m ber11, 2007, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on m ade A m endment706 r etr oact i ve byi ncl udi ng i ti n the l i s tof retroact i ve am end m ents i n § 1B 1. 10 (c) of the G uidel i nes. U
. S. S. G
. A pp. C
. amend. 713. Subse quent l y , both A ppel l ant s fi l ed mot i ons for red u cti o n o f se n tenc e p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) pr ovi des that , i n the ca s e of a defe ndant w 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, the courtm ayr educe the t erm of i m pr i s onm enti f s uch a re d u c tio n is c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le p o licysta tem e n ts issue d b ythe S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt7 appl i ed § 3582( c) ( 2) and found thata s ent ence r educt i on w as notcons i s t entw i th the appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued by the S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rtthere fo re d e n ie d th e A p p e lla n ts ’ m o tio n s o n S e p te m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 8
. II. In 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c ), C o n g re ss m a n d a ted th a t co u rts “maynotm odi fya t erm of i m pr i s onm entonce i thas been i m pos ed. ” C ongr es s di d pr ovi de exc ept i ons t o thi s gener al rul e, on e of w hich, § 3 58 2(c) (2) , provides,

[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 s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. 984( o) , upon m ot i on of the def endantorthe D i r ect orof the B ur eau of Pr i s ons , oron i t s ow n m ot i on, the courtm ay r educe the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , aft er cons i der i ng the fa ct or s s etfor th i n s ect i on 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 su c h a re d u c tio n is c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). A s the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yi dent i fi ed, a def endant8 is e lig ib le f

o r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) o n ly w hen tw o elem ents are s at i sfi ed: Fi rs t , the d efen dan tm ust have be en “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; ” and s econd, the s ent ence r educt i on m us tbe “c ons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued b yth e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n .” If a d e f e n d a n t f a ils to sa tisf yb o th re q u ire m e n ts, a d istric t co u rt lac k s ju risd ictio n to cons i dera s ent ence r educt i on. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our tthatthe A ppel l ant s fai l t o s at i s fythe s econd r equi r ement , and w e dec i de thi s cas e s ol el yon thatgr ound. T h e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n ’s p o licysta tem e n ts r egar di ng § 3582( c) ( 2) ar e s etfor th i n U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10. See U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10 cmt
. backgr ound. U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) provides: A r educt i on i n the def

endant ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm enti s notcons i s t entw i th thi s pol i cy s t at ementand ther efor e i s notauthor i zed unde r 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582( c) ( 2) i f – (A ) N o n e o f

th e a m e n d m e n ts liste d in s ubs ect i on ( c) i s appl i cabl e t o the defe ndant ; or ( B ) A n amendm entl i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) does nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the def endant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne9 ra n g e . U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )( 2 ). A m endment706 i s l i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c)
. A l though A m endment706 w oul d have l ow er ed J ohn D oe’ s i ni t i al s ent enci ng r ange c al cul at ed underU
. S. S. G
. § 5A ( the sent encing t able) from 15 1-188 m on ths t o 1 21 -151 m on ths, and J ane D oe’ s i ni t i al s ent enci ng r ange f r om 121- 152 m onths t o 97- 121 m onths , the amendm entdi d notl ow erei therof the A ppel l ant s ’ m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence s . T he D i s tr i ct C o u r tc o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f

i e d th e f l a s h p o i n to f

c o n tr o v e r s y: T h u s, the c ri ti ca l i ssu e is w h ethe r th e term “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i n § 1 B 1
. 1 0 (a)(2)(B ) refe rs t o [th e A p p ell an ts’ ] init ial sen tenc ing ran g e . . . ca lculated u n d er § 5A or[the A ppel l ant s ’ ] gui del i ne s ent ence of [l i fe i m pri sonm ent ortw entyy ears , re s p e c tiv e ly] c a lc u la te d u n d e r § 5 G 1 .1 (b ). A s w e expl ai n bel ow , the t erm “appl i cabl e gui del i ne range” in § 1B 1. 10 (a) (3) (B ) r efers t o the A pp el l ants ’ G u ideline s en tenc es a s set b ythe s tatu torym an d atory m i ni m um . A s the A ppel l ant s ’ m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence s w ere n o t aff

ec ted b yA m en d m en t 70 6 , the A p p ell an ts are in e lig ib le f

o r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n .10 III
. T h e A p p e llan ts a d v a n c e six a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l, w hi ch w e cons i ders er i at i m . Fi r s t , the A ppel l ant s ar gue that thei rdow nw ar d departur es fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o the g o v e r n me n twe r e , a tl e a s ti n p a r t , “ b a s e d o n ” th e n o wam end ed crack co cai ne g uidel i nes. As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r th e l d , a n d we agr ee, thatdeci di ng thi s cas e s ol el yon the s econd e l ementof § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) is a p p ro p ria te a n d w e th e re f o re d e c lin e to a d d re s s th e A p p e lla n ts ’ “ b a s e d o n ” a rg u m e n t. I V. Second, the A ppel l ant s ar gue thatbyr equi r i ng an am en d m en t t o “h av e the ef fe ct of low ering a d ef

en d an t’ s a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e , ” th e p o l i c ys t a t e me n to f U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1
. 1 0 (a)(2) im p li cit lyred ef ines the § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) term “bas ed on” a nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )(2 ) a ss u m e s th a t a s e n ten c e m a yb e “ b a se d o n ” o n ly one thi ng, i n t hi s cas e the mandat orym i ni m um . T he A ppel l ant s cont end thatthi s narr ow i nt erpr et at i on of the pol i cys t at ementconfl i ct s w i th the br oadert erm s and congr es s i onal i nt entof § 3582( c) ( 2) and ther efor e mustbe r ej ect ed. See St i ns on v. U ni t ed St at es , 508 U
. S. 36, 45 ( 1993) (h o ld in g th a t th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s c o m m e n tar yis anal ogous t o an age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of i t s ow n l egi s l at i ve rul e, and ther efor e i s “author i t at i ve unl es s i tvi ol at es the11 C o n s titu tio n o r a f

e d e ra l s ta tu te ” ). Speci fi cal l y , the A ppel l ant s ar gue thata s t atut e mustbe r ead w i th i t s or di narym eani ng i n m i nd. See U ni t ed St at es v. G ei s er , 527 F. 3d 288, 294 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “W hen det erm i ni ng a statute’s p lai n m ea n ing , o u r st arti n g p o int i s ‘th e o rdin ary m eani ng of the w or ds us ed. ’ ”)
. A s the w or d “bas i s ” has m ul t i pl e meani ngs , i ncl udi ng “a s uppor t i ng l ay erorpart , ” the A ppel l ant s ar gue that§ 3582( c) ( 2) does notr equi r e thatthe s ubs equent l yl ow er ed s ent enci ng r ange be the s ol e oreven the pr i m arybas i s forthe s ent ence . A l though t her e i s oft en no one ba s i s fora cr i m i nal s ent ence , the A ppel l ant s m i s r ead the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s opi ni on. T he pl ai n l anguage of § 3582( c) ( 2) r equi r es thata s ent ence re d u c tio n b e “ c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le p o licysta tem e n ts i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” § 3582( c) ( 2)
. T he p lain lan g u a g e o f

th e sta tu te, th e re f

o re , sp e c if

ica lly i ncorpor at es the C om m i s s i on’ s pol i cys t at ement s , i ncl udi ng the pol i cys t at ementr equi r i ng thatthe amendm enthave the eff ectof l ow er i ng the def

endant s ’ s appl i cabl e G ui del i ne ra n g e . U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )( 2 ). A d d itio n a lly, 2 8 U .S .C . § 994( u) pr ovi des that“[i ] f the C om m i s s i on r educe s the t erm of i m pr i s onm entr ecomm ended i n the gui del i nes appl i cabl e t o a p a rticu lar o f

f e n se o r c a teg o ryo f

o f f e n se s, it sh a ll sp e c if

yin w hatci r cumst ance s and byw hatamount the s ent ence s of pr i s oner s s ervi ng t erm s of i m pr i s onm entm aybe r educe d. ” § 994( u)
. See al s o B r axt on v. U ni t ed St at es , 500 U
. S. 344, 348 ( 1991) ( ci t i ng § 994( u) and hol di ng that“C ongr es s has12 gr ant ed the C om m i s s i on the unus ual expl i ci tpow ert o deci de w hetherand t o w hatext enti t s amendm ent s r educi ng sent ences w i l l be g i ven retroact i ve ef fect ). U nd er the ex press s t atut oryl anguage of § 3582( c) ( 2) and § 994( u) , the C om m i s s i on’ s pol i cys t at ement s i m pl ement i ng r etr oact i ve s e n te n c e re d u c tio n a re b in d in g . N otonl ydi d C ongr es s i nt end t o i ncorpor at e the C om m i s s i on’ s pol i cys t at ement s i nt o § 3582( c) ( 2) , butthe pol i cys t at ementand § 3582( c) ( 2) ar e compl ement ary . T he fi r s tpr ong of § 3582( c) ( 2) r equi r es thata def endanthave be en se n ten c e d b a se d o n a se n ten c in g ra n g e th a t h a s s u b se q u e n tly been l ow er ed. T he pol i cys t at ementr equi r es thatthe amendm entm us thave a ctual l yhad the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the G u id e lin e ra n g e . A lth o u g h th e p o licysta tem e n t is n a rro w e r, it c e rt a in ly d o e s n o t ru n c o n tr a ry to § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). V. T h ird , the A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t term “ a p p lica b le gui del i ne r ange” i n U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) r efe r s t o the a p p e llan ts’ in iti a l G u id e lin e ra n g e s, w h ich w e re su b se q u e n tly low ere d b yA m en d m en t 70 6 , an d n o t th eir m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence s , w hi ch w er e notaff ect ed bythe amendm ent
. W e di s agr ee. B oth the G ui del i ne l anguage and T h ir d C ir c u it p re c e d e n t r e q u ir e o th e rw is e . B oth t he l anguage and s tructur e of the G ui del i nes l ead t o t he conc l us i on that“appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i n §13 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B ) r efe r s t o the A ppel l ant s ’ G ui del i ne s ent ence , cal cul at ed under§ 5G 1. 1( b)
. Fi r s t , U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 1, the C om m i s s i on’ s gener al i ns truct i on on how t o appl ythe G ui del i nes , s peci fi es thatappl y i ng a mandat orys ent ence pur s uantt o § 5G 1. 1( b) i s the l as ts t ep i n det erm i ni ng the A ppel l ant s ’ appl i cabl e G ui del i ne s ent ence . T he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on di r ect s court s t o appl ythe G ui del i ne pr ovi s i ons i n a s peci fi c or der
. Fi r s t , a courtdet erm i nes the G ui del i ne r ange. U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 1( g)
. T hen, a courtcal cul at es the G uidel i ne sentence un der chap t er fi ve o f t he G uidel i nes. U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 1( h)
. T hi s i ncl udes the ca l cul at i on of the s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um s forboth the A ppel l ant s under § 5G 1. 1( b)
. T her efor e, as the D i s tr i ctC our thel d, the ca lculati o n o f th e statuto rym an d atorym inim u m u n d er § 5 G1
. 1 ( b ) , n o tth a to f

th e i n i t i a l Gu i d e l i n e r a n g e u n d e r§ 5 A, w a s th e f in a l ste p in d e ter m in in g th e A p p e llan ts’ a p p lica b le G u id e lin e ra n g e s. M o re o v e r, th e lan g u a g e o f § 5 G 1 .1 (b ) itse lf r equi r es thi s r es ul t
. I tpr ovi des “[w ] her e a s t atut or i l yr equi r ed m i ni m um s ent ence i s gr eat erthan the maxi m um of the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, the s t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um s e n te n c e s h a ll b e th e g u id e lin e s e n te n c e .” U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .1 (b ). I n addi t i on t o t aki ng gui dance fr om the G ui del i ne l anguage , w e addr es s ed thi s i s s ue i n U ni t ed St at es v. C or der o. I n C or der o, the def

endantpl ed gui l tyt o var i ous drug- r el at ed o f f e n se s. 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e a p p lica b le G ui del i ne r ange f

orthe def

endantw as 63- 78 m onths , butthe defe ndantw as s ubj ectt o a mandat orym i ni m um of 12014 m o n ths. A fter g ran ti n g the g o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r a dow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o U
. S. S. G
. § 5K 1. 1 and 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (e ), th e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d th e d e f e n d a n t to 86 m onths i m pr i s onm ent
. T he di s tr i ctcourtus ed the 120 m on th m and at orym i nim um , rather than the o therw i se appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange, as the s t art i ng poi ntforgr ant i ng the dow nw ar d departur e. T he def endantappea l ed, ar gui ng thatthe di s tr i ctcourts houl d have appl i ed the depa r tur e t o the 6 3 -7 8 m o n th G u id e lin e ra n g e , rath e r th a n th e 1 2 0 m o n th m a n d a to ry m in im u m . T he C or der o courthel d thati n s uch a s i tuat i on the m andat oryper i od of i ncar cer at i on i s notw ai ved, butr ather “s ubs um es and di s pl ace s the otherw i s e appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange a nd thus becomes the s t art i ng poi ntforanydepartur e or e n h a n c e m e n t th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt m a ya p p lyin c a lc u la tin g th e a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e u n d e r t h e g u id e lin e s .” C or der o, 313 F. 3d at166. A l though C or der o addr es s es the appr opr i at e s t art i ng poi ntfora dow nw ar d departur e r ather th a n th e in terp re tatio n o f § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ), it s re a so n in g is instructive. T h e ra ti o n ale o f C o rde ro re q u ir es th at th e term “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i n § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) r efe rt o the A p p ell an ts’ G u ideline s en tenc es a s ca lculated u n d er § 5 G 1 .1 (b ) b e c a u se th a t se n ten c e su b su m e d a n d re p lac e d th e ir i ni t i al s ent enci ng r anges cal cul at ed under§ 5A
. A l though the A ppel l ant s ’ i ni t i al G ui del i ne r anges w er e l ow er ed by A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 , the ir in iti a l ra n g e s a re n o lo n g e r a p p lica b le b ec au se th e A p p ell an ts w ere su b ject t o a m an d atory m i ni m um . T he i ni t i al r anges have be en s ubs um ed.15 A ccor di ngl y , A m endment706 does nothave the ef fec tof l ow eri ng the A pp el l ants ’ appl i cable G uidel i ne rang es becau se the mandat orym i ni m um s w er e unaf fec t ed byA m endment 7 0 6
. T he G uidel i nes’ A pp l i cat i on N otes t o § 1B 1. 10 al so su p p o rt th is re a so n in g :

[A ] r educt i on i n the def endant ’ s t erm of i mp r i s o n me n ti s n o ta u th o r i z e d u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) a n d is n o t co n sis ten t w ith th is p o licysta tem e n t if . . . a n a m e n d m e n t li ste d in s ubs ect i on ( c) i s appl i cabl e t o the def endantbut the amendm entdoes nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the def

endant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange be caus e of the oper at i on of another gui del i ne ors t atut orypr ovi s i on (e .g ., a s t at ut ory m andator y m i ni m um t erm of i m pr i s onment ). U
. S
. S
. G
. § 1 B 1. 10 cm t
. 1(A ) ( em ph asi s added ). S ee al so U ni t ed St at es v. Pool e, 550 F. 3d 676, 679 ( 7th C i r . 2008) ( “The A ppl i cat i on N ot e conf i r m s thatA m endment706 does nothave the ef

fec tof l ow er i ng [the def endant ’ s ] gui del i ne r ange be caus e the r ange appl i cabl e t o herbyoper at i on of l aw w as the st atutorym i nim um t erm . ”); U nit ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 551 F. 3d 182, 186 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( “W e ar e bound bythe l ang uag e of [ U
. S
. S
. G
. § 1 B 1. 10 , app l i cat i on no t e 1] becau se Co n g r e s s h a s ma d e i tc l e a rth a ta c o u r tma yr e d u c e th e t e r ms16 o f im p riso n m e n t u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c ) o n lyif d o in g so is
‘ 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. ’ ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 517 F
. 3 d 1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 4 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ) (sam e). I n es s ence , the A ppel l ant s ’ ar gum entturns on the r el at i ons hi p betw een “ appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” and
“ g u id e lin e se n ten c e .” U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .1 (b ) re q u ire s th a t a m andat orym i ni m um gr eat erthan the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange s hal l be the G ui del i ne s ent ence a n d § 1 B1
. 1 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) excl udes a r educt i on i f an a m endmentdoes nothave the ef fec t of low eri ng a def

end ant’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange . T he A ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe t erm “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” cannotr efe rt o the G ui del i ne s ent ence beca us e the G ui del i nes c re a te a d istin c tio n b e tw e e n th e ter m s. T h e sim p licityo f th is ar gum enti s appea l i ng, butneverthel es s i ti s di s pel l ed bythe cl eari m por tof the § 1B 1. 1 or derfors ent ence det erm i nat i on, the l anguage of § 5G 1. 1( b) , the comm ent aryt o § 1B 1. 10 and o u r h o ld in g in C o rd e ro . T he keyt erm i s “appl i cabl e” G ui del i ne r ange, r ather than “i nit i al ” G uidel i ne rang e. B ecause the A pp el l ants ’ m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence s under§ 5G 1. 1( b) s ubs um ed a n d d isp lac e d th e ir in iti a l G u id e lin e ra n g e s, th e a p p lica b le G ui del i ne r ange f

orpurpos es of § 1B 1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B ) m us tbe the A p p ell an ts’ m an d atorym inim u m sen tenc es, w h ich w ere notaff ect ed byA m endment706. See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. M o o re , 5 4 1 F .3 d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 3 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t a defe ndanti s notel i gi bl e forr es ent enci ng under§ 3582( c) ( 2)17 w her e “a r etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e gui del i ne amendm ent r educe s a def

endant ’ s bas e off

ens e l evel , butdoes notal t erthe sen tenc ing ran g e u p o n w h ich h is or h er se n tenc e w as b ase d ”). V I. F o u rth , the A p p ell an ts argu e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed i n t r eat i ng the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s pol i cy stat em en ts as b ind ing af ter U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er. I n B o o k e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt re -a f f irm e d th a t th e S ix th A m endmenti s vi ol at ed bythe i m pos i t i on of an e nhance d s ent ence underthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes bas ed on the s ent enci ng j udge’ s det erm i nat i on of a f act( otherthan a pr i orconvi ct i on) thatw as notfound bythe j uryoradmi t t ed by the def endant
. 543 U
. S. at229, 244. T he C our tconcl uded that thi s cons t i tut i onal hol di ng w as i ncompat i bl e w i th the m andat orynatur e of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes and r emedi ed the def ectbys ever i ng the s t atut orypr ovi s i ons thatm ade the G ui del i ne r ange mandat ory . I d. at245; s ee G al l v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 4 (2 0 0 7 ). N ow her e i n B ookerdi d the Supr eme C our tm ent i on § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). B e c a u se § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) p ro c e e d in g s m a yo n ly r educe a def

endant ’ s s ent ence and noti ncr eas e i t , the cons t i tut i onal hol di ng i n B ookerdoes notappl yt o § 3582( c) ( 2)
. See B ooker , 543 U
. S. at244. A ddi t i onal l y , the re m e d ia l h o ld in g in B o o k e r i n v a lid a te d o n ly 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (b)(1 ), w h ich m ad e the S en tenc ing G u idelines m an d atory f o r f u ll se n ten c in g s, a n d § 3 7 4 2 (e ), w h ich d ire c ted a p p e llate18 court s t o appl ya de novo s t andar d of r evi ew t o departur es f ro m th e G u id e lin e s. T h e re f o re , B o o k e r “ a p p lies to f u ll s ent enci ng hear i ngs – w hetheri n an i ni t i al s ent enci ng ori n a re s e n te n c in g w h e re th e o ri g in a l s e n te n c e is v a c a te d f o r e rr o r,” b u t no t t o sen tenc e m o d ifi ca ti o n p roc ee d ing s u n d er § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). U n ited S tate s v . D u n p h y , 5 5 1 F .3 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 3 (4 th C i r . 2009) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. M cB r i de, 283 F. 3d 612, 615 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Faul ks , 201 F. 3d 208, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng a “f ul l r es ent enci ng” f ro m a re d u c tio n o f

se n ten c e u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 )). N o t o n ly are sen tenc e m o d ifi ca ti o n p roc ee d ing s san cti o n ed u n d er a d iffe ren t secti o n o f th e statute tha n tho se a t i ssu e in B o o k er, butthe B ookercourthel d that“[w ] i th thes e tw o s ect i ons exci s ed ( and s t atut orycr os s - r efe r ence s t o the tw o s ect i ons cons equent l yi nval i dat ed) , the r emai nderof the A cts at i s fi es the C our t ’ s cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s . ” B ooker , 543 U
. S. at 259. “Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) cont ai ns no cr os s - r efe r ence t o § 3 5 5 3 (b ) a n d th e re f

o re w a s n o t af

f e c ted b yB o o k e r. N o r is ther e anythi ng el s e i n B ookerthatdi r ect l yaddr es s es § 3582( c) pr ocee di ngs . ” D unphy , 551 F. 3d at253; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. R hodes , 549 F. 3d 833, 839- 840 ( 10th C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng thatB ooker ’ s r emedi al hol di ng does notoper at e on § 3582( c) ( 2) and thatSent enci ng C om m i s s i on Pol i cy St at ement s ar e bi ndi ng on di s tr i ctcourt s pur s uantt o § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ))
. I n addi t i on, thi s C our thas pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed the not i on thatB ookerr ender s the G ui del i nes advi s oryfor purpos es of § 3582( c) ( 2)
. I n U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, the19 defe nd ants w ere conv i ct ed an d sentenced f or a cr ack o ffen se befor e A m endment706 beca m e r etr oact i ve. 515 F. 3d at221. U
. S
. S
. G
. § 1 B 1
. 1 0 p rov ides that a re d u cti o n u n d er § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) is n o t au th o riz e d u n les s th e a m e n d m e n t is curr ent l yr etr oact i ve. T he def endant s i n W i s e ar gued that beca us e the G ui del i nes w er e no l ongerm andat ory , theyneed notw ai tforA m endment706’ s r etr oact i vi tyt o appl yt o s eek r el i ef unde r§ 3582( c) ( 2)
. T hi s C our ts ai d, T hatfundament al l ym i s under s t ands the l i m i t s of B o o k e r. N o th in g in th a t d e c isio n p u rp o rte d to o b v iat e the co n g ression al direc ti v e o n w h ethe r a s ent ence coul d be r educe d bas ed on s ubs equent change s i n the G ui del i nes . A s w e have s t at ed b e f o re , ‘[ t]h e lan g u a g e o f

th e a p p lica b le se c tio n s c o u ld n o t b e c lea re r: th e sta tu te d ire c ts the C our tt o t he pol i cys t at ement , and the pol i cy s t at ementpr ovi des thatan amendm entnotl i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) m aynotbe appl i ed re tr o a c tiv e ly p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2).’ I d. at221 n. 11 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. T hom ps on, 70 F. 3d 2 7 9 , 2 8 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ))
. A l though W i s e cons i der ed the mandat orynatur e of the G u id e lin e s in a slig h tlyd if f e re n t co n tex t, i ts re a so n in g is e n tirelya p p lica b le h e re . N o th in g in B o o k e r p u rp o rte d to20 o b v iate th e c o n g re ss io n a l d ire c tiv e in § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) th a t a se n ten c e re d u c tio n p u rsu a n t to th a t se c tio n b e c o n sis ten t w ith Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pol i cys t at ement s . T he l anguage of § 3582( c) ( 2) coul d notbe cl ear er : the s t atut e pr edi cat es a u th o rityto re d u c e a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e o n c o n sis ten c e w ith th e p o licysta tem e n t, an d th e p o licysta tem e n t p ro v id e s th a t a r educt i on i s notcons i s t enti f the amendm entdoes nothave the eff ectof l ow er i ng the def

endant ’ s appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange. “The G ui del i nes ar e no l ongerm andat ory , butthatdoes not re n d e r o p tio n a l” s ta tu to ry d ir e c tiv e s . Id . a t 2 2 0
. A dm i t t edl y , the N i nth C i r cui t , i n U ni t ed St at es v. H i cks , hel d thatB ookerabol i s hed the mandat oryappl i cat i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes i n al l cont ext s . 472 F. 3d 1167, 1 1 6 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e , h o w e v e r, as so c iate o u rse lv e s w ith th e re a so n in g o f

th e T e n th , E ig h th , an d F o u rth C irc u its in rej ect i ng H i cks. “The pr obl em w i th the H i cks deci s i on, i n our v ie w , is th a t it f

a ile d to c o n s id e r t h a t . . . s ent ence m odi fi cat i on pr ocee di ngs have a di ffe r ents t atut orybas i s than or i gi nal s ent enci ng p ro c e e d in g s. A s a re su lt, th e N in th C irc u it err oneous l yconcl uded thatthe r emedi al port i on of the B ookerdeci s i on, w hi ch r ender ed the gui del i nes eff

ect i vel yadvi s oryforpurpos es of or i gi nal s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs , appl i ed t o § 3582( c) ( 2) pr ocee di ngs as w el l
. ”21 R hodes , 549 F. 3d at841. See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. St arks , 551 F. 3d 839, 841- 842 ( 8th C i r . 2009) ( di s agr eei ng w i th H i cks and conc urr i ng w i th R hodes thats ent ence m odi fi cat i on pr ocee di ngs have a di ffe r ents t atut orybas i s than or i gi nal s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs ) ; D unphy , 551 F. 3d at254 ( “W e fi nd the H i cks anal y s i s t o be fl aw ed bec aus e i tfai l s t o cons i der tw o m a rk e d c h a ra c te ri s tic s o f a § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) p ro c e e d in g . . . : ( 1) thi s pr ocee di ng al l ow s onl yfordow nw ar d adj us t m entand (2 ) t h is p ro c e e d in g is n o t a f u ll r e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g .” ). B eca us e U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10 i s bi ndi ng on the D i s tr i ct C o u rt p u rsu a n t to § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ), th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly concl uded thati tl acke d the author i tyt o fur therr educe the A p p e lla n ts ’ s e n te n c e s . V II. F ifth , the A p p ell an ts argu e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt op i nion com pels patent l yabsurd an d u nfairres ult s. Speci fi cal l y , the A ppel l ant s ar gue that : 1) defe ndant s s ubj ect t o a mandat orym i ni m um , butw i th hi gheroffe ns e l evel s or cr i m i nal l evel s thatboos tthei rappl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange above the mandat orym i ni m um , w oul d be el i gi bl e fora § 3582( c) ( 2) r educt i on, w hi l e an of fende rw i th a l ow ercr i m i nal h isto rylev e l o r lo w e r o f f e n se lev e l, w h o se G u id e lin e ra n g e is l es s than the mandat orym i ni m um , w oul d notbe el i gi bl e for r el i ef; 2) defe ndant s w ho pl ead gui l tyand coope r at e w i th the governm entw i l l notbe ent i t l ed t o the bene fi tof the amended22 G ui del i ne r ange; and 3) s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur es r ew ar d as s i s t ance , butdo notaddr es s the cr ack/pow der coca i ne di s par i tyand ther efor e fa i l t o r emedythati nj us t i ce. W e fi nd the A ppel l ant s ’ ar gum ent s unper s uas i ve bec aus e they i gnor e C or der o and the cl ears t atut orydi r ect i ve of § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). V III
. F inally , the A p p ell an ts argu e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed i n deny i ng thei rm ot i ons fors ent ence m odi fi cat i on by fai l i ng t o appl ythe rul e of l eni ty . I n i nt erpr et i ng an ambi guous cr i m i nal s t atut e, the courts houl d r es ol ve the ambi gui tyi n the def

endant ’ s favor
. See U ni t ed St at es v. I ntr ocas o, 506 F. 3d 260, 261 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. T he rul e of l eni tyappl i es i n “thos e s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch a r eas onabl e doubt p e rsis ts a b o u t a s tatu te’ s in ten d e d sc o p e e v e n a f ter re so rt to
‘ the l anguage and s tructur e, l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory , and mot i vat i ng po l i c i e s ’ of

the s t a tut e . ” U ni t e d St a t e s v. R. L. C. , 50 3 U. S. 291, 305- 306 ( 1992) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he rul e i s not pr oper l yi nvoked s i m pl ybeca us e a s t atut e r equi r es cons i der at i on and i nt erpr et at i on t o confi r m i t s m eani ng. M u sca rell o v . U n it ed S tat es, 52 4 U
. S
. 1 2 5 , 1 3 8 (19 9 8 ). It appl i es onl yi f ther e i s s uch “gr i evous ambi gui tyor uncert ai nty ” i n a s t atut e that , “af t ers ei zi ng everythi ng fr om w hi ch ai d can be der i ved, [the C our t ] can make no more than a gues s as t o w hatC ongr es s i nt ended. ” I d. at139 ( i nt ernal qu otat i on m arks, ci t at i on s and ell i psi s om i t t ed). S ee al so23 St eel e v. B l ackman, 236 F. 3d 130, 133 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “W her e the l anguage of a s t atut e i s cl ear. . . the t extof the s ta tu te is th e e n d o f

th e m a tte r.” ). I n t hi s cas e, the phr as es “bas ed on” a nd “the ef fec tof lo w e rin g th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” n e e d to be i nt erpr et ed, butcons i der at i on of the l anguage s tructur e, s ubj ectm att er , cont extand hi s t oryof § 3582( c) ( 2) and U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )(2 ) e sta b lish e s th a t th e yd o n o t co n tain s uch an a m bi gui tythatthe C our tcan make no more than a g u e s s a s to w h a t C o n g re s s in te n d e d
. I X. I n pr ovi di ng thats ent ence r educt i ons m us tbe cons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pol i cy sta tem e n ts, § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) c re a tes a ju risd ictio n a l b a r to s ent ence m odi fi cat i on w hen a r etr oact i ve amendm entdoes not h a v e th e e f

f e c to f l o we r i n g th e Gu i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e . As A m endment706 di d nothave the ef fec tof l ow er i ng the A p p ell an ts’ m an d atorym inim u m sen tenc es u n d er § 5 G 1
. 1 (b), the A ppel l ant s fai l t o s at i s fythe s econd e l ementof § 3582( c) ( 2) and ar e ther efor e i nel i gi bl e fora s ent enci ng r educt i on underthats ect i on. T he dec i s i on of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt w ill b e a f

f ir m e d
.W e ar e al one i n thi s appr oach; al l otherci r cui t s t o have 1 ad d r es s ed the i s s ue have hel d that the m axi m um ext ent of a s u b stan ti al as s i s t ance departur e maybe bas ed onl yon the defe ndant ’ s s ubs t ant i al a s s i s t a n c e . Se e Uni t e dSt at es v. D es s el l e, 450 F. 3d 179, 182 & n. 1 ( 5th C i r . 2006) ( and ca s es ci t ed -1- Fuent es , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng: I concuri n J udge A l di s ert ’ s w el l

- cr aft ed and tho r ough opi ni on. H ow eve r, I w r i t e s epar at el yt o not e thatour interpr et at i on of U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10 i m pl i ci t l yr es t s on the a ss u m p tio n th a t th e re c a n b e o n lyo n e g u id e lin e ra n g e a p p lica b le t o a defe ndant
. For the r eas ons that fol l ow , I am not s ure that a s s u m p tio n is c o rr e c t. T h e k e yq u e stio n in in terp re tin g § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )(2 )(B ) is w ha t “ th e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e ” i s wher e a defe ndant , s ubj ect t o a s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um , r ece i ves a dow nw ar d departur e bel ow thatm i ni m um bas ed on hi s orher s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o the gover nm ent
. T he t erm “appl i cabl e” i s an expan s i ve one: the pl ai n m eani ng of “t o appl y ” i s “t o put to u se ” o r “to b rin g in to a c tio n .” M e rria m W e b ste r’s C o lleg iate D i ct i ona r y5 7 ( 1 0 th e d
. 1 9 9 6 )
. Th e r e i s n o d i s p u t e th a tt he D i s tr i c t Cou r t d i d i n d i c a t e th a t i t was u s i n g th e D oes ’ § 5A G ui del i nes r anges i n deci di ng the ext entof the i rs ubs t ant i al a ss ista n c e d e p a rtu re s. M o re o v e r, th a t a p p ro a c h w a s p e rm iss ib le underourpr ece dent , w hi ch al l ow s a di s tr i ct court t o cons i derthe s er i ous nes s of a de fenda nt ’ s offe ns e— oft en r efl ect ed i n the § 5A G ui del i nes r ange— i n det erm i ni ng the ext ent of a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur e. See U ni t ed St at es v. C as i ano, 113 F. 3d 4 2 0 , 4 3 1 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). 1ther ei n) ( hol di ng thatthe magni tude of a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance d ep arture m a yref

lect on ly“a ssist an ce -relat ed co n ce rns” ). A ccor di ngl y , other ci r cui t s have hel d defe ndant s l i ke the D oes t o be i neli g i bl e forr es ent enci ng beca us e thei ror i gi nal G ui del i nes r anges cannot be appl i ed i n det erm i ni ng the s i ze of a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur e. See, e. g. , U ni t ed S tat es v. W i l l i ams, 551 F. 3d 182 ( 2d C i r . 2 0 09) ( r efus i ng t o al l ow the r es ent enci ng of a de fenda ntunder § 1B 1. 10 w her e the def endant h ad re c e iv e d a s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e d e p a rt u re fro m a m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence )
. Howev e r , th a td i v e r gence i n the appl i cat i on of § 1B 1. 10 i s s i m pl y the i nevi t abl e r es ul tof a di ffe r ence i n our s ent enci ng doctr i ne. See U ni t ed St at es v. M cG ee, 553 F. 3d 225, 2 2 8 n .2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (a c k n o w led g in g th a t th e h o ld in g in W i l l i a ms was p r e d i c a t e d o n th e Se c o n d Ci r c u i t ’ s ru l e th a tthe m axi m um ext entof a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance departur e maynot t ake i nt o acc ountanythi ng bes i des the def endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al assistan ce to the g o v ern m en t)
. T h e appl i cabi l i tyof a s ent enci ng r ange otherthan the 2 m andat orym i ni m um i s even mor e not i cea bl e i n the not u n c o m m o n c irc u m sta n c e w h e re a d is tr ict c o u rt sp e c if ica lly -2- T herefore, the plai n m eaning of § 1B 1. 10 w ou l d sug gest that J oh n an d Jane D oe are el i gibl e for res entenci n g becau se th e ir o rig in a l G u id e lin e s ra n g e s w e re a p p lied in c a lcu latin g th e ir or i gi nal s ent ence s and thos e r anges w er e s ubs equent l yl ow er ed by the c r a c k c oc a i ne a mend ment
. Suc h a r e s ul t make s sense s i nce the D i s tr i ctC ourtm i ghti ndeed ha ve gr ant ed a gr eat er departur e had i thad the benefi tof the modi fi ed G ui del i nes r anges at the t i m e of the ori gi nal s ent enci ng. C f. U ni t ed St at es 2dep art s bya cert ai n n um ber of o ffen se l evels
. N ot abl y , § 5G 1. 1( b) actual l yr efe rs t o the i ni t i al 3 s ent ence cal cul at ed under § 5 A as “the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” W hi l e th is b y n o m eans i ndi cat es thatthe i ni t i al G ui del i nes r ange r emai ns “appl i cabl e” i f a s ent enci ng j udge -3- v. M cG ee, 553 F. 3d 225, 228 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( “Si nce, fr om our r eadi ng of the s ent enci ng tr ans cr i pt , the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d [ th e d e f e n d a n t] b a se d o n th e c ra c k c o c a in e g u id e lin e s a n d w o u ld l i kel yhave c ons i der ed a di ffe ren t se nt ence fr om the one i mp o s e d i f

th e a p p l i c a b l e c r a c k g u i d e l i n e s h a d s o p r o v i d e d , we thi nk that[r eadi ng § 1 B 1. 10 t o barr es ent enci ng] w oul d l end its e lf to e x c e s s iv e f

o rm a lis m .” ). J udge A ldi s ert , bycontr as t , r eas ons thatthe or i gi nal G ui del i nes r ange c oul d nothave be en the appl i cabl e gu idel i ne r ange i n thi s cas e beca us e a m andat ory m i ni m um “s ubs um es and d isp la c e s th e o th e rw ise a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” in iti a lly cal cul at ed underU
. S. S. G
. § 5A
. U ni t ed St at es v. C or der o, 313 F
. 3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ); se e also U
. S
. S
. G
. § 5 G 1
. 1 (b). H ow ever , C or der o, U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 1, and § 5G 1. 1( b) , the author i t i es r el i ed upon bythe m aj or i ty , des cr i be the s ent enci ng pr ocedur e bef

or e the con side r at i on of a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance d e p a rtu re m o tio n . U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 a n d § 5 G 1 .1 (b ) d ire c t a s ent enci ng courtt o appl y a m andat ory m i ni m um s ent ence r ather than the § 5A G ui del i nes r ange i f the form er i s gr eat er . Y etthat i s notthe fi nal s t ep of a s ent enci ng w her e, as her e, the D i s tr i ct C our thas br oughtthe i ni t i al G ui del i nes r ange ba ck i nt o the pi ctur e i n det erm i ni ng the ext ent of a dow nw ar d departur e fr om th a t m a n d a to rym in im u m . S im ila rly , C o rd e ro sta ted th a t a 3app l i es a m and at orym i nim um and st op s there, it d o e s suggest that“appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” i s m eantt o be des cr i pt i ve of the re ali tyo f th e se n tenc ing p roc ess ra the r th an a f o rm al t erm r efe r r i ng to the r ange thatr es ul t s aft erthe appl i cat i on of § 1B 1. 1( h)
. T he “ap p li cabl e gui del i ne r ange” m ayevol ve as the s ent enci ng pr ocee ds : pr i ort o the s t eps des cr i bed i n § 1B 1. 1( h) i ti s the § 5A r ange, af t er§ 1B 1. 1( h) i s fol l ow ed i tm aybe a m a n d a to rym in im u m , b u t af ter th e c a lcu latio n o f

a p p lica b le departur es under§ 1B 1. 1( i ) the t erm m ayexpand t o inc l ude a r ange thati s i n fac tpartof the pr oces s of gr ant i ng a depa r tur e. -4- m andat orym i ni m um sent ence “s ubs um es and di s pl ace s the otherw i se appli cable guidel i ne rang e” w hen § 5 G 1. 1(b) i s ap p li ed “a n d thu s b ec o m es th e s ta rt ing p o int fo r an yd ep arture o r e n h a n c e m e n t th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt m a ya p p lyin cal cul at i ng the appr opr i at e sent ence underthe gui del i nes . ” 313 F. 3d at 1 6 6 ( emphasi s added)
. W hi l e the mandat orym i ni m um i s ther efor e the “s t art i ng poi nt ” fora s ubs t anti al as s i s t ance departur e, C or der o s ay s nothi ng as to w hetherthe i ni t i al Gui d e l i n e s r a n g e ma yo n c e a g a i n b e c o me a p p l i c a b l e i n the pr o c e s s o f

d e t e r mi n i n g th e e x t e n to f a s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t ance departur e. A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1( A ) t o § 1B 1. 10 i s l i kew i s e i rr el evant h ere . A lth o u g h ito ff

ers th e ex am p le o f “a statu torym an d atory m i n i mum t e r m of

i mpr i s o n me n t ” a s a p r o v i s i o n th a tm i ght oper at e t o keep a n amendm ent f rom “hav[ i ng] the ef

fec tof l o wer i n g the def

endant ’ s appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, ” i tdoes not sp ea k to the ca se w h ere the a p p li ca ti o n o f a statu torym an d atory m i ni m um i s fol l ow ed bya s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance depa r tur e. See U ni t ed St at es v. Sas h, 396 F.3d 515, 523 ( 2d C i r . 2005)-5- ( not i ng that“a G ui del i ne mayappl yi n s i tuat i ons not c o n te m p la te d b yth e b a c k g ro u n d c o m m e n ta ry t o th e G u id e lin e ,” and i n s uch cases “w hatm att er s i s the pl ai n l anguage ” of the G u id e lin e its e lf

). T her efor e, the maj or i ty ’ s cons truct i on of § 1B 1. 10 hol ds onl yi f i t i s r ead t o al l ow foronl ya s i ngl e “appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” and the mandat orym i ni m um i s deemed t o be thatr ange. I ul t i m at el yconcuri n thati nt erpr et at i on, but fordi ffe r ent re a s o n s th a n th o s e c ite d b yth e m a jo ri ty. T he p l ai n langua ge o f t he p oli cy st at em ent does sugg est th a t th e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n e n v isio n e d o n lya sin g le appl i cabl e r ange gi ven i t s r efe r ence t o “the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra n g e ” ra th e r th a n “ a n ” a p p lica b le r a n g e . W h ile th e u se o f th is art i cl e mi ghtbe a fa ir lyw eak s i gn of the C om m i s s i on’ s i nt ent o n its o w n , th e p ro v isio n ’s w o rd in g is b o lste re d b ya p o ten tially re a so n a b le ju stif

ica tio n f o r a n a p p ro a c h th a t iso late s a sin g le “appl icabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” W er e § 1B 1. 10 r ead t o al l ow r es ent enci ng anyt i m e a n yG ui del i nes r ange appl i ed t o a defe ndant w as s ubs equent l y r educe d by a re tr oact i ve amendm ent , i tcoul d open the doort o r es ent enci ngs w her e the m o d if ie d ra n g e p layed o n lyth e m o st ta n g e n tial ro le in det erm i ni ng t he def

endant ’ s s ent ence . If t he Sent enci ng C om m i ssi on ’s go al w a s in d e ed to avo i d thatres ult , the b est ca n d ida te f

o r th e D o es’ “ ap p li ca b le” g u ideline ra n g es h ere w oul d s eem t o be thei rm andat ory m ini m um s ent ence s , as C or der o does deem an appl i cabl e m andat ory m i ni m um t o be the
“ s ta rt in g p o in t” f

o r t h e s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e d e p a rt u re . T hi s l anguage i s enough t o pr event the appl i cat i on of the ru le o f len ity , w h ich w o u ld re q u ire u s to c o n stru e § 1 B 1 .1 0 in-6- f a v o r of A p p e llan ts. A s the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s p re v io u slyh e ld a n d re c e n tly c o n f

irm e d , th e ru le o f

len ityis to b e in v o k e d o n ly i n cases of “g ri evo us am bigui ty . ” H ud dles t on v. U nit ed S t at es, 415 U
. S. 814, 831 ( 1974) ( quot ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. H ay es , 129 S. C t
. 1079, 1089 ( 2009) )
. H er e, w e have a s peci fi c s i gn of the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s pos s i bl e inte nti n i t s w or di ng of the p o licysta tem e n t, an d m a y re ly o n th a t ra th e r th a n a g e n e ra l ru le of s t atut orycons truct i on. St i l l , § 1B 1. 1 0’ s w or di ng i s a fr ai l bas i s foran i n terpr et at i on thatw oul d pr oduce the tr oubl i ng r es ul t , ver gi ng on abs ur d, o f all o w i ng w or s e def endant s a cha nce a tr educe d s e n t e n c e s wh i l e de pr i v i n g l e s s s e r i o u s o f f e n d e r s o f

th e s a me oppor tuni ty . Forexampl e, a def endantw i th a G ui del i nes r ange higher than the m and at orym i nim um becau se of an off ense i nvol vi ng a s i gni fi cantquant i tyof cr ack coca i ne w ho r ece i ved a departur e t o bel ow the mi ni m um w oul d be el i gi bl e for r es ent enci ng undert he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s under s t andi ng of § 1B 1
. 1 0, w her eas a def

endantw i th an i ni t i al G ui del i nes r ange bel ow the mandat orym i ni m um beca us e of a n offe ns e i nvol vi ng a sm a ller q u a n tityo f c ra c k w o u ld n o t g e t th e sa m e o p p o rtu n ity ev en if h e a lso rec eive d a d ep arture to b elow the m an d a tory m inim u m . (A p p ell an ts’ B r. 3 1
. ) S u ch co n seq u en ce s are part i cul ar l yunnece s s arys ince the goal of conf i ni ng r es ent enci ngs t o cas es w her e a s ubs equent l yl ow er ed G ui del i nes r ange pl ay ed a si gni fi cant r ol e i n the ori gi nal s ent ence w oul d be eq u al l yw el l

- s erved bya di ffe r entm ethod: even i f a de fenda nt i s dee m ed el i gi bl e forr es ent enci ng, di s tr i ctcourtj udges m ay s i m pl yus e thei rdi s cr et i on under§ 1B 1. 10( b) to fin d a l ow er se n ten c e u n m e rited w h e re th e a ltere d G u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s o n ly r emot el yr el evanti n det erm i ni ng the def endant ’ s t erm of-7- im p ri s o n m e n t. A ddi t i onal l y , atl eas ts om e of the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s s t aff

author ed a s tudyof th e co ns equenc es of appl y i ng A m endment706 r etr oact i vel y i n w hi ch theyas s um ed that d efe ndant s w ho had r ece i ved a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance d e p a rtu re f

ro m a m a n d a to rym in im u m w o u ld in f a c t b e e lig ib le forr es ent enci ng. See G l enn Schm it t e tal
. , A nal y s i s of the I m pactof the C r ack Cocai ne A m endmentI f M ade Ret r oact i ve 5- 6 ( 2007) , ht tp: //w w w . us s c. gov/r es ear ch. ht m ( ci t ed i n U ni t ed S tat es v . W il li am s, 5 4 9 F
. 3 d 1 3 3 7 , 1 3 4 0 (11 th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 )). W hil e I am un sure w hat w ei gh t t o g i ve thi s source, i tdo es r ai se so m e q u e stio n s a s to h o w th e C o m m iss io n in ten d e d § 1 B 1 .1 0 to be appl i ed. F i nall y , the m aj ori tydo es no t d ifferent i at e t he D oes’ c irc u m sta n c e s f

r o m th o se o f

a n o th e r c a teg o ryo f

d e f e n d a n ts w h o m so m e c o u rt s h av e ru led eli g ible fo r resen tenc ing u n d er § 1 B 1 .1 0 : d e f

e n d a n ts w h o re c e iv e d d e p a rt u re s u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4A 1. 3( b) bas ed on the s ent enci ng j udge’ s det erm i nat i on that thei rcl as s i fi cat i on as car eeroffe nder s repr es ent ed an over s t at ementof thei rcr i m i nal hi s t ory . S ee, e. g. , M cG ee, 553 F. 3d 225; U ni t ed St at es v. Po ind ex te r , 550 F. Supp. 2d 578 ( E
. D
. Pa. 20 0 8 ); U ni t ed St at es v. R agl and, 568 F. Supp. 2d 19 ( D
. D
. C
. 2008) ; s ee al s o U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 1 cmt
. n. 1 ( des cr i bi ng both types of depa r tur es as m ethods fori m pos i ng s ent ence s “ou t side th e a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” ). In b oth ci rcum st ances, the mandat ed s ent ence i s deemed i napp rop ri at e and the i ni t i al G ui del i nes r ange maypl aya r ol e i n det erm ining the pr oper s ent ence , r ender i ng i tan “appl i cabl e” r ange. G iven thes e c o n side rati o n s , I ex p ress so m e d isco m fo rt-8- w ith o u r in terp re tatio n o f § 1 B 1 .1 0 . W h ile its la n g u a g e b a re ly favor s the m aj or i ty ’ s i nt erpr et at i on, I am unsur e w hetherour re a d in g o f

th e p o licysta tem e n t tru lyre f lec ts th e in ten t o f

its d ra f ter s. T h e re f

o re , w h ile I c o n c u r w ith m yc o llea g u e s’ u lti m a te concl us i o n th a tJ o h n a n d J a n e Doe a r e i n e l i g i b l e f or r es ent enci ng, fur thergui dance f r o m th e Se n t e n c i n g Commi s s i on on this qu est i on w ou l d n ot go am i ss.