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. 09- 4380

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S H A N N O N L A M O N T M A T H IS a/k/ a Shan M oney S han no n L am on tM athis , A p p e l l a n t

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00059- 001 ( H onor abl e Sean J . M cLaughl i n)

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

J une 8, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , JO R D A N and V A N A S K IE, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 14, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. Shannon M athi s , a pr i s onerpr oceeding pr o s e, appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our tor der deny i ng hi s m ot i on under 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) fora r educt i on i n s ent ence . Forthe r eas ons th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.2

F o llo w in g a ju rytrial in 2 0 0 7 , M a th is w a s c o n v icte d o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istri b u te fi ve gr ams orm or e of c r ack, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) , and pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne, i n v i o l a t i o n o f § § 8 4 1 ( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) . T he D i s tr i ct C ourt del ay ed M athi s ’ s ent enci ng unt i l aft erthe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pr om ul gat ed A m endment706 t o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes . A m endment706 pr ovi ded a tw o- l ev e l b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l r e du c t i o n forcert ai n cr ack- r el at ed off ens es , i ncl udi ng thatforw hi ch M athi s w as convi ct ed. A t se n ten c in g , th e D istric t C o u rt c a lcu late d M a th is’ b a se o f f e n se lev e l at 2 6 , an d h is cri m i nal hi s t oryc a t e go rya tI V , w i th a r e s ul t i ng gu i de l i ne r a ng e of 92 t o 1 15 mont hs’ im p riso n m e n t. T a k in g in to a c c o u n t A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 , the D istric t C o u rt c a lcu late d h is gui del i ne r ange a t77 t o 96 m onths . H ow ever , the D i s tr i ct C ourt w as r equi r ed t o i m pos e a m in im u m se n ten c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s u n d e r § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(B ), an d , af terin c lu d in g e n h a n c e m e n ts forobs truct i ng j us t i ce a nd w i tnes s i nt i m i dat i on, the D i s tr i ct C ourt s ent ence d M athi s t o 185 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . W e af fi rm ed M athi s’ c o n v ict i on and s ent ence i n J une 2009. See U n it ed S tat es v . M athis, C . A . N o . 0 8 -16 8 8 (j u d g m en t entere d Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 ). W hi l e hi s di r ect appea l w as pendi ng, M athi s fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC ourta mot i on under 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) for a re tr oact i ve m odi fi cat i on of hi s s ent ence , bas ed on the tw o- l evel re d u c tio n a f

f o rd e d b y A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , a n d M a th is f i l e d a t i me l yn o t i c e o f

a p p e a l . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r th e a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C.3

§ 1 29 1. W e revi ew the d eci si on t o denya sent ence redu ct i on un der § 35 82 (c) (2) for abu se o f d iscreti o n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . M ateo , 5 6 0 F . 3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 & n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). I n deny i ng r el i ef, the D i s tr i ctC ourtr eas oned that , under the pl ai n l anguage of § 3582, M athis w as in eli g ible fo r a se n tenc e re d u cti o n . S ec ti o n 3 5 8 2 all o w s a co u rtto low er a sent ence w here the ap pli cable s e ntenci ng range w as “ su b se q u e n tly . . . l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” § 3582( c) ( 2) ( emphasi s added) . A m endment706 w as pass ed b e f o re M a th is re c e iv e d h is s e n ten c e . In d e e d , the D istric t C o u rt p o stp o n e d se n ten c in g a t h is r eques ti n ant i ci pat i on of A m endment706, and expr es s l ycons i der ed the im p o rtof the amendm entats ent enci ng. B eca us e A m endment706 pr ece ded M athi s ’ s ent ence , the D i s tr i ct C our tconcl uded, he coul d notobt ai n r el i ef unde r§ 3582( c) ( 2) . W e agr ee. G i ven thathe w as s t atu tor i l yi nel i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on becaus e he w as s ent ence d under A m endment 706, ther e i s no need t o eval uat e the D i s tr i ct C ourt ’s ot her r eas ons fordeny i ng r el i ef, orM athi s ’ addi t i onal ar gum en ts r egar di ng the appl i cabi l i tyof U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , t o h i s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y, a n d 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.